Consciousness Defined

[BigApplePi]

There is a good deal of talk about consciousness, its mysteries and attempts to explain it clearly. I've read some of it, but enough to take a view of what it means. I propose this:

Consciousness is an awareness of a defined, but limited area. Consciousness is an extreme of awareness. By awareness I mean a capacity to perceive cause an effect. Consciousness is a collective of awarenesses. It is the whole of such. That's a far as I've gotten without looking to examples. The examples below are in no particular order, yet we might create an order.

1. Human beings are aware of a good many things at any particular instant. They are not conscious of others. Take the MBTI. INTPs are not aware or dismiss from awareness, the shadow functions: Te Ni Se and Fi. They are conscious of Ti Ne Si and Fe though not all at the same time, some fading in and out of consciousness.

2. Each bird in a flock of birds is aware of the bird next to it. It is aware enough to keep a certain distance and change direction when necessary. That does not mean it is aware of the entire flock or even of the leader.

3. A fish is aware of a lot of things. Danger, companions, water currents, food. It has a limited consciousness of those things in the sense that us humans are aware of larger meanings.

3a. A bat, like the fish has consciousness. But it has a greater consciousness than humans in some special sensory areas.

3b. A plant is alive and without a brain or at least what we think of as a brain. Its awareness is far different from animals, yet it is aware. Its awareness of micro-time is far superior to ours.

4. A upright domino like the flock of birds is sensitive enough to fall when its neighbor falls into it. That is the limit of its awareness because it doesn't have the rest of the surrounding apparatus that live things have.

5. The internet (needs definition) is aware of a lot of technology going on but it is not aware of any existence outside of itself. We could say it is conscious of internal bits turning on and off but not what they mean. It fails, so far, to have enough awareness of itself to stop parts of itself from shutting down. It does not seek self-preservation. It is a machine. Humans, on the other hand, have an awareness of the internet. When its parts shut down they take action to revive it.

5a. Artificial intelligence will have a way to go before it develops awareness sufficient to be called consciousness. That is because it would require a sensual complexity adequate to seek self-preservation in the face of external forces. Without that complexity it will remain intelligent only relative to external beings' requirements.

6. A narcissistic person is conscious and has awareness. But this awareness, by definition, is limited to the world as it refers to hirself. They are not very much conscious of values outside of themselves and disregard them.

7. A human being or an elephant when looking into a mirror is aware of itself as a whole entity. A dog or cat is not. This doesn't mean the latter are not conscious. It just means their consciousness is limited.

Thus consciousness may be thought of as the whole of a hierarchy of awarenesses. Commonly our awareness of the outside world is one of tunnel vision as when looking through a scope. Our awareness changes as we move the scope, but sometimes we don't see much.

Conscious Comments? Critiques? Here is one from Ask Architect

 

[The Void]

Imagine a hypothetical world where there is only heat,
and I am aware of heat, there is only heat, no cause and effect,
so by definition I am not aware of heat even though I feel and am aware of heat?
Internet is aware of what?
Is my book aware of the words written on it?
I dont know, I think you are changing semantics on your own way,

well I ask one another thing, define percieving....

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-subconscious-or-all.html

 

[The Void]

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-subconscious-or-all.html

Consciousness means possessing an accurate concept of self.

And the proof of THAT is the fact that psychopaths (who by definition don't have empathy) also "happen" to not have any self-identity (a long-term concept of their self).

so I am not conscious?

 

[Architect]

5. The internet (needs definition) is aware of a lot of technology going on but it is not aware of any existence outside of itself. ...

I don't think yet we have any technology that demonstrates any level of awareness, certainly not self awareness. As I've said elsewhere the leap will come (I believe) when our technology goes beyond syntactic understanding (which it already has) to semantic.

 

[Aerl]

While I agree on some level of such definition I would like to bring something up but I just can't put my finger on it so I'll just write something that is bothering me.

"My Conscience is aware of my awarness being imperfect and I'm conscious of this because I am aware of this, but now I am also aware of my awareness on this level again..."

"I know that I think, but there is noone besides me to acknowledge it, now I don't know if I really think, thus my knowledge of current situation is imperfect and I know that, but if I know that, it implies that this result is also invalid. So I don't think I know that I think, but now I am in knowledge of that... "

This is like a thought hazard. This is painful, thank you.

 

[BigApplePi]

Imagine a hypothetical world where there is only heat,
and I am aware of heat, there is only heat, no cause and effect,
so by definition I am not aware of heat even though I feel and am aware of heat?

If you can feel the heat and you are aware of its affect at all, something is changing. So you are conscious of heat but nothing else. Like dead heat.

Internet is aware of what?

That it is changing. It is aware of relative change.

Is my book aware of the words written on it?

No because it ain't moving. It is only you who are conscious of it.

I dont know, I think you are changing semantics on your own way,

I'm putting out the ideas. The semantics may need a little work.

well I ask one another thing, define percieving....

Perceiving = awareness via some form of sensation

 

[BigApplePi]

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-subconscious-or-all.html

Philosophers being idiots argue about whether the "purpose" of the subconscious is representational like Freud said or "productive" like Deleuze claims. But this is idiotic because the subconscious has no "purpose" to consciousness.

The subconscious's purpose is the foundation upon which awareness lies. It's like the foundation upon which the house is built. What the f did Freud mean by "representational"?

 

[BigApplePi]

Consciousness means possessing an accurate concept of self.

I think that meaning is misleading and unnecessary. That's asking way too much of consciousness. Why not use the word, "awareness", which is scaled so we can have low awareness and high awareness?

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't think yet we have any technology that demonstrates any level of awareness[the internet], certainly not self awareness. As I've said elsewhere the leap will come (I believe) when our technology goes beyond syntactic understanding (which it already has) to semantic.

I am using "awareness" to include low level awareness. To exclude this usage is to lose the meaning for high awareness which is based hierarchically of low awareness. So I propose that the internet as with any other machine, because it moves, has one part interacting with another part. This interaction is the foundation of awareness. If you like, we can find another word than awareness and think of the subconscious as just below conscious and call the subconscious, "potential awareness."

This in a proposal I propose to be accepted in understanding consciousness. We cannot talk about consciousness without recognizing what lies below: subconsciousness.

 

[BigApplePi]

While I agree on some level of such definition I would like to bring something up but I just can't put my finger on it so I'll just write something that is bothering me.

"My Conscience is aware of my awarness being imperfect and I'm conscious of this because I am aware of this, but now I am also aware of my awareness on this level again..."

"I know that I think, but there is noone besides me to acknowledge it, now I don't know if I really think, thus my knowledge of current situation is imperfect and I know that, but if I know that, it implies that this result is also invalid. So I don't think I know that I think, but now I am in knowledge of that... "

This is like a thought hazard. This is painful, thank you.

If I get what you are saying, you are talking about a special consciousness. You are talking critically about your consciousness.

You also said, "noone besides me to acknowledge it." I acknowledge what you are talking about as long as I'm guessing at what you are saying. In normal communications I take a measure of my trust in that understanding.

 

[Architect]

I am using "awareness" to include low level awareness. To exclude this usage is to lose the meaning for high awareness which is based hierarchically of low awareness. So I propose that the internet as with any other machine, because it moves, has one part interacting with another part. This interaction is the foundation of awareness.

Then the nerves in your skin are aware. Not a definition I'd take but if it works for you.

 

[Thurlor]

I'm not sure you are using the word 'awareness' in the correct fashion. By your definition it would seem an electron is 'aware' of its parent nucleus. For the term to remain meaningful in this discussion I think we need decide whether there is a lower limit on the complexity of an object that can possess any form of awareness.

Besides which, I'm not really sure awareness and consciousness are the same thing. I think I would define consciousness as an awareness of one's own awareness of one's internal and external environment.

 

[BigApplePi]

Then the nerves in your skin are aware. Not a definition I'd take but if it works for you.

Right on! The nerves in your skin are a low level awareness which if connected to the brain bring extra awareness. If those nerves don't connect all the way to the brain, then I define it as local awareness for those nerves.

Although this definition says something to me I want to convey it for others. The reason why it is commonly rejected, I suppose, it that people want awareness to be generalized, not local. I'm afraid all such generalities are a synthesis of localities like it or not. Such generalities exist as a hierarchy of localities.

Another way of looking at this is local awareness is accepted by local consciousness; general awareness or consciousness is accepted by general awareness. I, because of my human conceit grant acknowledgment of consciousness/ awareness to my dog, but not to a plant or machine. I claim that is pure human conceit.

 

[The Void]

If you can feel the heat and you are aware of its affect at all, something is changing. So you are conscious of heat but nothing else. Like dead heat.

well to some extent I agree consciousness is inseparable from time (transition)
(more like a video running but nothing is happening in the video),
the very act of consciousness is time,
but when I feel heat, I only feel the effect, when I say it is hot, I am only talking
about the effect, I may not percieve any cause at the moment, but I dont know
may be we are using different types of expression.


That it is changing. It is aware of relative change.


No because it ain't moving. It is only you who are conscious of it.

But how is internet conscious? books can move if I move it.
Internet can move\change if someone change it, or if it is programmed to change.
but is being programmed, consciousness?


I'm putting out the ideas. The semantics may need a little work.


Perceiving = awareness via some form of sensation

Now, here you go circular. You used perceiving to define awareness, no you are using awareness to define percieving,
so in the end it cannot be truly defined actually without running in somesort of circular stuff.

..........................................

 

[Josteen]

Totally agree with this concept, it is what I thought to be true too.
Our consciousness that we felt right now is the manifestation of multiple awareness that exist in our physical entity, my skin can feel touch but it is limited to only that, until the impulse is transfered to my nervous system I don't feel anything and therefore I am not aware of it.
The "me" right now is just a collective awareness of multiple entity/objects that work in conjunction with one another to form me.
Hence why I asked whether it was possible for consciousness to exist without our feelings or senses, most of the responders agree that it may be possible but I will become less than what I am, I am missing a part of myself that made me myself.
But each of my senses can be identified independently, yet "I" cannot exist without them. In essence each and every one of them is an aspect of me and the me right now is the aspect of their totality

 

[Aerl]

You also said, "noone besides me to acknowledge it." I acknowledge what you are talking about as long as I'm guessing at what you are saying. In normal communications I take a measure of my trust in that understanding.

Now we have a problem once more, we need someone else besides me and you to acknowledge you.

This is the same problem as when your existence can be acknowledged by another person who looks at you through the window but that person needs another one to acknowledged him, thus an endless loop is formed.

Though, I can see how beings that are on a lower level than humans don't fall into this rabbithole.

To become aware of awarness you first need to be conscious of it and one self.

Right on! The nerves in your skin are a low level awareness which if connected to the brain bring extra awareness. If those nerves don't connect all the way to the brain, then I define it as local awareness for those nerves.

Although this definition says something to me I want to convey it for others. The reason why it is commonly rejected, I suppose, it that people want awareness to be generalized, not local. I'm afraid all such generalities are a synthesis of localities like it or not. Such generalities exist as a hierarchy of localities.

Let me be bold on this and say I am not the only one on cyberspace who is aware that we humans, who traverse that domain, act like ants and form a being which we call internet, but now that I am aware of such awarness I form a local consciousness... Hi Internet, where do I plug myself into to connect to the center?

 

[BigApplePi]

Marvelous insight.

Now we have a problem once more, we need someone else besides me and you to acknowledge you.

Yes. A third party and then a fourth party helps. Consciousness involves add-ons. It is an iterative process.

... thus an endless loop is formed.

I'm not sure this is a closed loop. I see it as add-ons ... like an open string. Of course it loops back but doesn't have to ... wait. Maybe you are right.

Though, I can see how beings that are on a lower level than humans don't fall into this rabbithole.

Yes. There are lower level beings -who- that are not socialized.

Let me be bold on this and say I am not the only one on cyberspace who is aware that we humans, who traverse that domain, act like ants and form a being which we call internet, but now that I am aware of such awarness I form a local consciousness... Hi Internet, where do I plug myself into to connect to the center?

Me too. Hello internet. I talk to you locally. But where is all of you? It is beyond me. I imagine a center because I fancy unity, but possibly there is none. Possibly it's a lot of loco locals slapped together. Eventually something smart enough to create a brain may be created but who is smart enough to see or do that?

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm not sure you are using the word 'awareness' in the correct fashion. By your definition it would seem an electron is 'aware' of its parent nucleus. For the term to remain meaningful in this discussion I think we need decide whether there is a lower limit on the complexity of an object that can possess any form of awareness.

I agree. More care with definitions is needed. This morning I will define sub-awareness, awareness, consciousness as ordered in increasing complexity. This means an electron is sub-aware of its nucleus. An electron certainly is affected by the presence of its nucleus. It just doesn't have the accompanying apparatus to further this affect.

If we like, we can coin a new word for "sub-aware." I just don't have one handy. Even sub-aware is too complex for simple affectability of cause.

Besides which, I'm not really sure awareness and consciousness are the same thing. I think I would define consciousness as an awareness of one's own awareness of one's internal and external environment.

Agreed. Consciousness is a more complex awareness. But what you said goes too far IMO. A mouse need not be very aware that it has an individual existence but it still can have a measure of consciousness. Oh ... this is semantics. I won't argue the point. The word is too fuzzy.

 

[BigApplePi]

Well said. We are many things and a unity of them emerges.

One interesting thing is what emerges out of "me" is not quite the same as what emerges out of "you." We have slightly different consciousnesses, but enough is there to modestly communicate. Note this is not a universal truth. Many people talk AT each other where all we hear is the shouting and not the meaning.

 

[Aerl]

@BigApplePi

Guess I'm ready to bring something interesting up.

In my native language we have a word "Sąmonė" or "Sąmoningum-as" which
translates into Consciousness. We also have "Sąmoningum-o", what translates
into awarness. These are not the "base words but a construct of prefixes and
alike.

"Są-monė" , Są expresses that it's a collective of something, more precisely
"monė", but we don't have a meaning for such a word, or the meaning was
lost durring the period country was occupied by soviets.

From what you said I stumbled upon this idea:

What we call Sub-Consciousness should be instead Un-Consciousness.
From Un-Consciousness arises Sub-Consciousness and afterwards Consciousness as we are aware of it "at this moment".

This gives a new twist to understanding why we don't continue the loop which I mentioned previosly,

1st sub level. (aware of senses)
2nd sub level. (aware of 1st sub levels imperfection)
3rd sub level. (aware of 1st and 2nd sub levels problem, creates 4th level)
4th sub level. (realises that 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th are not solving the problem)
5th sub level. (understands that continueation is meaningless and decides to form a new chain to come up with an alternative solution.

Consciousness of this becomes 1st sub level of a new problem.


This implies that the number of sub-levels used determines the complexity of
the problem or in more common terms: The more complex the problem is the
more people are needed to come up with an answer.

Now about internet, we now form 2 sub-levels but in contrast to it's potential
it's nothing, but it is the birth of a being none the less, although it's not as
grand as anyone would think it would be, no fireworks or mass-destruction,
we might die without acomplishing anything also in correlation to it.

 

[Aerl]

1st sub level. (aware of senses)
2nd sub level. (aware of 1st sub levels imperfection)
3rd sub level. (aware of 1st and 2nd sub levels problem, creates 4th level)
4th sub level. (realises that 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th are not solving the problem)
5th sub level. (understands that continueation is meaningless and decides to form a new chain to come up with an alternative solution.

Consciousness of this becomes 1st sub level of a new problem.

Me too. Hello internet. I talk to you locally. But where is all of you? It is beyond me. I imagine a center because I fancy unity, but possibly there is none. Possibly it's a lot of loco locals slapped together. Eventually something smart enough to create a brain may be created but who is smart enough to see or do that?

I am starting to notice something remarkable, atleast to me.

Everyone who is on this forum has some level of awarness of internets activity.
They form 1st sub-level.

Now I put you in position as someone who notices this as well as I do and
you realise that they don't notice the higher levels of consciousness.
You form 2nd sub-level.

Now I am Conscious of Internets possible 1st and 2nd sub-levels, I form now
the 3rd sub level and I come up with our result:

We now form local 3 layer Consciousness which is aware of itself, because
everyone who reads this becomes aware of other layers. A word of warning, there is a rabbit hole in this concept which I dont wish for you to fall into, it is a hazard like I noted previosly.

Obviosly 1st level is everyone mindlessly asking questions and droping insight,
2nd level would have to generalise everything, 3rd come up with a plan to test
it and 4th prove it's effectiveness. This does not mean We are fixed in position,
but depending on complexity we can build multiple layers.

This pattern is easy to see in external world too.
1 level Person
2 levels Family
3 levels union
4 levels village
5 levels town
etc.

If we want to know how a more intelligent being thinks, we should
consider how a vast, space like empire would be organised.

p.s. I feel like I'm medling in a very dangerous affairs and indulged myself in too much of that hazard, I can't see the picture right because I've built too many layers. Simple way to put it, my Consciousness is fucking itself inside out and back in reverse, and upside down, it's a complete mess. I need rest.

 

[BigApplePi]

p.s. I feel like I'm medling in a very dangerous affairs and indulged myself in too much of that hazard, I can't see the picture right because I've built too many layers. Simple way to put it, my Consciousness is fucking itself inside out and back in reverse, and upside down, it's a complete mess. I need rest.

The creative process is not an easy one. It can be a great if successful or a pain of lost chaos. When we put things together there is a lot of struggle and defeat, but when successful it is a joy.

Nice work.

 

[The Void]

CONSCIOUSNESS UNDEFINED

1) Your definitions are circular.
a) You defined consciousness by using the word 'awareness'.
b) You defined awareness as something associated with perceiving.
c) The you went back to b) by using the word awareness to define perceiving.

I thereby, challenge you to first clearly define all of them, without going circular,
if you can't all these speculations are pointless and without any base, and the whole title of the original post becomes misleading.

2)Each water molecules by themselves are not wet, but by the property of wetness
emerges after the water molecules get together. If awareness emerges out of some process then that does not mean that everything involved in the process is actually aware but again that depends on your definition of awareness.

3)On which basis do you define? I can define awareness means laptop. Why? Because I just defined so. What is the exact basis of defining anything. It is just a term. Is calling laptop as awareness less accurate than saying awareness as whatever you are saying? Why and how?
You are still relating to some sort of convention to define awareness,
but then it is already defined, what are you defining?
Yes, the definition is not complete, and I am highly doubtful on how exactly anything can be defined.
Define 'hand'. Yes tell me what is hand?
I can ask the definition of the words you use to define hand, and then I can ask
the definition of definition or the meaning of meaning.
It is a loop.

4)If electrons and protons are conscious, then game AIs or any type of programming may be conscious.
Google translator may be conscious too.
It must be aware of what language it is given and what to translate it into.
But it depends again on what you define as awareness, and I might have not really understand your semantics here correctly, my bad.

 

[Aerl]

@BigApplePi

It's a good thing I actually was able to put it together without losing it or
erasing everything if I was to add one more layer, (erasing what doesn't make
sense, because you can't make much sense when you deal with hazards)

While I was able to describe how it works by analysing it .........analyse my
analysis. (The more you try to describe it in details the more complex it
becomes, it's like opening a room with a black hole, and you awaken outside
once you went through the whole mental brake down with nothing left but
an error report)

I can't define what it is or what it resembles at the moment but I have a
feeling it's very similar to how we write programs and diferent layers in them
to get particular results.

If you read my thread about how I view Emotions and Feelings , I believe that
is what would be something that resides in un-conscious domain. I don't think
these two ideas contradict each other, on the opposite, they might actually
compliment one another.

This is like the evolution of the mind "un-conscious level"->"sub-conscious
level"->"conscious level" and the possibilitie of Higher level of consciousness.

 

[Aerl]

Re: CONSCIOUSNESS UNDEFINED

@The Void

Your definitions are circular.

That is correct, but we're not really interested in the definition but more in the
pattern that is in place of how things work. Which we can define, unlike the loop
itself.

You defined consciousness by using the word 'awareness'.

If I where to ask you if you are conscious of being aware of what is happening
right now you would give me an answer that is false, because you would need
to be aware of your consciousness and in turn be again conscious of it.
Solution: are you aware of it? I am conscious of this particular awarness but
you can't be conscious of consciousness, because we have nothing above it, or
I'm just unable to find it.

You defined awareness as something associated with perceiving.

While perceiving means to have a particular sense of things, we use awarness
by logic to find that the way we perceive things is nor always correct. (I'll skip
the rabbithole here.)

define all of them, without going circular

perceiving - having a particular set of filters through which information is sorted and presented to the mind.

awareness - to know what influences perception and everything else

consciousness - the most critical part, "we don't know", but we know it's work pattern now.

p.s.
I hope that clarifies it a little, atleast it "appears" logical to me if I define it
like that. I'll add 2.3.4 later.

 

[The Void]

Re: CONSCIOUSNESS UNDEFINED

@The Void

Your definitions are circular.

That is correct, but we're not really interested in the definition but more in the
pattern that is in place of how things work. Which we can define, unlike the loop
itself.



But the title is consciousness DEFINED, so I thought....
but if the definition is not done, then the pattern of what?

You defined consciousness by using the word 'awareness'.

If I where to ask you if you are conscious of being aware of what is happening
right now you would give me an answer that is false, because you would need
to be aware of your consciousness and in turn be again conscious of it.
Solution: are you aware of it? I am conscious of this particular awarness but
you can't be conscious of consciousness, because we have nothing above it, or
I'm just unable to find it.

You defined awareness as something associated with perceiving.

While perceiving means to have a particular sense of things, we use awarness
by logic to find that the way we perceive things is nor always correct. (I'll skip
the rabbithole here.)

well I was only using the statements to expose the circular nature
define all of them, without going circular

perceiving - having a particular set of filters through which information is sorted and presented to the mind.

awareness - to know what influences perception and everything else

consciousness - the most critical part, "we don't know", but we know it's work pattern now.

p.s.
I hope that clarifies it a little, atleast it "appears" logical to me if I define it
like that. I'll add 2.3.4 later.

I will think about these definitions.

 

[The Void]

Well I will just add my view here:
Consciousness is ....I can't define.
First I don't distinguish between awareness and consciousness, but that does not means
that I am wrong or the OP is wrong but we just use the semantics in different ways.
That is why I am trying to clarify my position here.
I relate consciousness with the power of attention, with the ability to interpret the information provided by the sensations.

There are six senses that gives us -> vision, audio, scent, touch, taste, thoughts\dreams\imaginations, and probably their are other senses that we cant think about

and the stuff whatever it is that can sense the sensations, that can comprehend it, interpret it,

the stuff that hears your thought in the mind, the stuff that is reading this line,
it is the consciousness or awareness.

But this thing, consciousness is not an independent existence,
because consciousness is always consciousness of something, when all the senses are absent,
consciousness will be absent too,

but if consciousness have more attribute than mere consciousness, and there is nothing outside the mind, and all is some kind of creation of mind, or stuff, then I may be wrong,
but I better avoid such speculations right now.

One analogy I can use to explain consciousness, is light,
without light, things may go on on its own, but light is what brings vision of what is going on,
similarly I will say the primary property of consciousness is putting light to the processes, or whatever is going on.

but the OP seems to say that all processes need to be aware, but well I think based on the OP's definition the OP is correct...

But based on my system, there is just some consciousness, and nothing else can be known,
you people can be just programmings, unconscious, or may be even the stone is conscious,
it is only through predujice I can presume, that whoever behaves near about like me, is conscious because I seem to be conscious, but it is just inductive deduction and there may not even be a link between consciousness and the actions,

but most probably there is, but still the actions may exist without consciousness, how can I know,
I am just here without much memory, out of nowhere, I am just here out of the blue, without any clue.

Well now, I will put things into heiharchy.

1) The first level of consciousness is unreflected consciousness, or just simple consciousness.
I am not explaining much more, because hopefully, the 1) will be more understandable in comparison to the 2)

2) Second level consciousness: It is Reflective consciousness, that is the CONCEPT OF SELF is present. TA's link describes 2) as consciousness, that does not means anyone is wrong, just we are using different system, repeating again. There is no consciousness of consciousness (meta),
but consciousness of the understanding that there is consciousness.
The concept of self I guess starts with society interacting with you and treating you as an individual separate being, and slowly it develops, it starts with the understanding of the presence of consciousness, but then we go on deluding to no end, we attach too much BS thoughts and stories to it, and think it has any consistency or permanent and then lots of things and also suffering and all that appears out of it too, because if there is no concept of self then who is there to suffer, surely there is still consciousness of pain and stuff, but it would be a lot different. But yes, conscousness really totally devoid of the concept of self,
is not the consciousness as we know it

2a) Level 2.5 of consciousness: hive mind, mindless running on mere conditionings, and programming,

2b) level 3++ of consciousness: more consciousess, more individual thought capability, ability to step back and think and condition the conditionings, decondition and be immune to some forms of brainwashing.

3) level ∞: Me, the Void, the ultimate, well just kidding.

I find my post kind of silly though, please dont take it too seriously.

 

[Aerl]

@The void

Sorry about my post, it wasn't well writen, more along the lines of scraps of
what I was working with and refining. Glad it was enough to get an idea across.

That appears to be one of consciousness functions, traits.

My consciousness reads your post because that was predefined action to be
taken once I get the possibility to check for input. Once I start reading using my
senses, my awarness activates that new intel has been gathered and I become
conscious of it. So my consciousness before reading and afterwards is not the
same one.

That is correct, consciousness requers something to work with to be alive, and if
there is nothing it can't activate, hang on...... that might be the mystery behind
death. If the string of multiple consciousness is disrupted we lose all the
information that we've been in posetion before. Very interesting.

i.e.

a. people who experience something traumatic when young can't
remember some part of their life, as if it was erased, lost.

b. doing something unconsciously later to remember that you don't
remember what you were doing today. What where you doing 2 hours
ago? (unable to remember anything that you've done unconsciously)

(end to the string of predefined action and consciousness or outside it's
reach, though I am not sure how it happens. Not the best example)

I aproove the possibility of action without consciousness, that is why I
proposed to merge my thread into this one, about emotions and feelings.

It would mean that the actions executed by lower beings, is mechanical
execution of pre-predefined actions which are coded into their behavior by
genes. That doesn't make them stupid, but the true mastermind who is pulling
the strings here are genes..... Hi God.

Yes, that hierarchy appears to be right.

Thanks for the input Void, you gave me plenty of ideas to work with.

p.s. Organic beings, AI and machines share a diferent kind of awarness than
sub-atomic particals or elementary particals. This is semantics now.

 

[TimeAsylums]

http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf

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

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: CONSCIOUSNESS UNDEFINED

@The Void. Haven't gotten back here till now.

1) Your definitions are circular.
a) You defined consciousness by using the word 'awareness'.
b) You defined awareness as something associated with perceiving.
c) The you went back to b) by using the word awareness to define perceiving.

I thereby, challenge you to first clearly define all of them, without going circular,
if you can't all these speculations are pointless and without any base, and the whole title of the original post becomes misleading.

You are making a point. If I were to pick up a dictionary, all words within would be circular. Therefore we have to start somewhere. That starting point itself is unconscious and comes from our developed experience. So we look to a hierarchical construct, the lowest points being unconscious and beneath visibility.

Think of a ship seeing an iceberg, hitting it and sinking. Would we call the event circular simply because we don't understand how a ship could sink on seeing a visible iceberg? No. We speculate events below the water line brought about our circumstance.

2)Each water molecules by themselves are not wet, but by the property of wetness
emerges after the water molecules get together. If awareness emerges out of some process then that does not mean that everything involved in the process is actually aware but again that depends on your definition of awareness.

Correct. Awareness is scaled, from super-aware to fading aware to below the awareness level. This demands more careful language. Super-awareness is recognized by our full conscious self. Fading awareness is ignored by our full self, but we are still aware at a surface level. Leave it to physiologists to be more careful at defining this. We ourselves are not aware of what is below that. Our modular organs (which do not have consciousness) sense what is going on within them. We ordinary humans don't have words for this, but specialists do. Just because we don't have hands on to what our organs are doing doesn't mean we shouldn't be fair to them. Give our kidneys, liver, lungs credit for their own sensing abilities.

3)On which basis do you define? I can define awareness means laptop. Why? Because I just defined so. What is the exact basis of defining anything. It is just a term. Is calling laptop as awareness less accurate than saying awareness as whatever you are saying? Why and how?
You are still relating to some sort of convention to define awareness,
but then it is already defined, what are you defining?
Yes, the definition is not complete, and I am highly doubtful on how exactly anything can be defined.
Define 'hand'. Yes tell me what is hand?
I can ask the definition of the words you use to define hand, and then I can ask
the definition of definition or the meaning of meaning.
It is a loop.

Yes. We as humans don't deal with or bother with defining all that.

4)If electrons and protons are conscious, then game AIs or any type of programming may be conscious.
Google translator may be conscious too.
It must be aware of what language it is given and what to translate it into.
But it depends again on what you define as awareness, and I might have not really understand your semantics here correctly, my bad.

In our struggles to find out what is going on, we look through microscopes, creating sub-nucleus detecting machines. and creates theories like String Theory. We don't understand these things, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and sort of have a life of their own at their own sub-levels of existence.

 

[The Void]

Re: CONSCIOUSNESS UNDEFINED

@The Void. Haven't gotten back here till now.You are making a point. If I were to pick up a dictionary, all words within would be circular. Therefore we have to start somewhere. That starting point itself is unconscious and comes from our developed experience. So we look to a hierarchical construct, the lowest points being unconscious and beneath visibility.

Think of a ship seeing an iceberg, hitting it and sinking. Would we call the event circular simply because we don't understand how a ship could sink on seeing a visible iceberg? No. We speculate events below the water line brought about our circumstance.



Correct. Awareness is scaled, from super-aware to fading aware to below the awareness level. This demands more careful language. Super-awareness is recognized by our full conscious self. Fading awareness is ignored by our full self, but we are still aware at a surface level. Leave it to physiologists to be more careful at defining this. We ourselves are not aware of what is below that. Our modular organs (which do not have consciousness) sense what is going on within them. We ordinary humans don't have words for this, but specialists do. Just because we don't have hands on to what our organs are doing doesn't mean we shouldn't be fair to them. Give our kidneys, liver, lungs credit for their own sensing abilities.


Yes. We as humans don't deal with or bother with defining all that.


In our struggles to find out what is going on, we look through microscopes, creating sub-nucleus detecting machines. and creates theories like String Theory. We don't understand these things, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and sort of have a life of their own at their own sub-levels of existence.

ok.........

 

[Tutu]

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness