http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/337947/title/Self_as_Symbol

Interesting.

Yes, I did find that interesting.
Why did you find it interesting?

The writer is Tom Siegfried. I'd like to read more by him.

Added later.
Can't find a book by him, but this is more about him
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tom-siegfried

Added later.
Here are his books. I'll order one of them today. A Clever man.
Thanks for the introduction Reiku.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tom-Siegfried/e/B001IQZSDY

One proposal is that conciousness is an accidental by product of brain activity, but its content is self generated, or at least self referential.
How would individuals then agree on the nature of the physical world?

Yes, I did find that interesting.
Why did you find it interesting?

The writer is Tom Siegfried. I'd like to read more by him.

Added later.
Can't find a book by him, but this is more about him
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tom-siegfried

Added later.
Here are his books. I'll order one of them today. A Clever man.
Thanks for the introduction Reiku.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tom-Siegfried/e/B001IQZSDY

Well, personally, the idea that self-referential systems can come into paradoxes seems like an interesting approach to answer why certain questions about consciousness can never be satisfied, even if those questions seem like they are within the realm of what science can answer for.

Of course, an arguement I make often is that many of these questions which seem to ellude us may be answered by unknown mechanisms which quantum effects can take play. Leaving that aside though, probably most interesting of all for me, was when it said:

But consciousness is more than just an ordinary feedback loop. It’s a strange loop, which Hofstadter describes as a loop capable of perceiving patterns in its environment and assigning common symbolic meanings to sufficiently similar patterns.

Is a similar conjecture I reached concerning three principles of Qualia. The principle of interest was that qualia are solidified through measurements which correspond to observables. In much the same way, this process is acheived by perceiving patterns in its environment, which in a sense we have assigned symbolic meanings to akin to the passage.

The point I was making was that it doesn't avoid the mind body problem. Once the mind is thinking its unique thoughts, how does that transform into unique action?
A problem that, granted , the theory was not intending to solve anyway.

I've ordered a couple of Siegfried's books today.
I'm taking a month's holiday in June, and he will be my reading.
Siegfried. Is that the right spelling?
He would probably sell better if he had a pen name.

The point I was making was that it doesn't avoid the mind body problem. Once the mind is thinking its unique thoughts, how does that transform into unique action?
A problem that, granted , the theory was not intending to solve anyway.

I've ordered a couple of Siegfried's books today.
I'm taking a month's holiday in June, and he will be my reading.
Siegfried. Is that the right spelling?
He would probably sell better if he had a pen name.

Yea. His name is Tom Seigfried.

So what you are asking, is how thoughts translate into a physical action? Or is it something else?

We conventionally separate conscious activity from "unconscious" activity. The latter is usually considered to be "instinctive" behaviour that is independent of conscious thought.

Information is self-referential because it can "act" on itself. In that sense, conscious thinking is either just the brain "organising" unconscious activity which is instinctive or innate behaviour, or it's the brain "guiding" behaviour in the sense of decision-making. But there are plenty of examples of behaviour which is not guided by conscious activity. Our perception of a conscious self might just be information acting on itself. For instance, the article mentions that we are aware of our self-awareness. It seems to be recursive, whatever consciousness is.

Perhaps the material world and our experience of it is what keeps us from entering an infinitely regressive loop. We have to make decisions because the world is unpredictable. Making a decision involves this principle of information acting on itself.

Yea. His name is Tom Seigfried.

So what you are asking, is how thoughts translate into a physical action? Or is it something else?

You might say that consciousness is not a simple product of physical reactions in the brain, because consciousness also has an effect upon itself.
That would allow some freedom of thought independent of direct causation.
But once you have that freedom, how could consciousness influence action?

It may solve one half of the mind body problem, but it doesn't solve the other half.
That's not a problem for people who believe that consciousness and belief in free will are accidental, and a delusion.
This idea tends to support that view, I think.

Consciousness is observable through self reflection. Self reflection allows access to data you cannot observe from the outside. For example, you cannot observe the specifics of a dream from the outside. This requires consciousness observing itself, with a secondary source generating the dream symbols, which is separate from the conscious mind. If you only try to collect data from the outside, this data will not appear to exist, which is erroneous. The scientific method breaks down and lead to false negatives which undermine reality.

Based on my own data collection, there are two centers of consciousness. One is obvious and is called the ego or conscious mind while the other is unconscious and requires self observation effort and data collection to differentiate. If you don't know this very basic data, all theory of consciousness will be wrong by default, which is the state of the art.

Consciousness also has a connection to the basic physical chemistry of neurons. The rest state of neurons is actually at highest energy, due to the segregation of cations across the cell membrane. The segregation of cations also defines a state of lowered cationic entropy. If we did nothing the cations will increase entropy by diffusion into a uniform solution on both side of the membrane.

The value of this is this unstable arrangement, which oppose the first two laws of physics, lowest energy and highest entropy, is that it sets a dual potential with the first two laws of the universe. The universe prefers lower energy and higher entropy.

If the neuron fires it will lower energy and increase entropy. Therefore neuron firing is inevitable due to the first and second laws of physics. The brain restores the dual potential so there is a constant give and take associated with consciousness as it interacts with physical reality.

An analogy can be seen with mouse traps. At lowest energy all our mouse traps are sprung with no spring tension. Nothing will happen. But if we add energy and lower entropy by putting tension off the springs and arrange the mousetraps so there is an order to them, this is an accident waiting to happen. All we need is one mouse trap to fire and there is a chain reaction that lowers energy and increases the entropy as the mousetraps jumps and move out of place. That would be it, but the brain resets all tehe mouse traps so the odds are stacks again for activity.

The dual centers of the brain are needed to work both sides of the potential. The conscious mind is more connected the universe; willfully trigger neuron firing to help lower energy and increase entropy; memory recall or sensory focus to help fire neurons. The inner self can do both but also works the restoration angle so the dual potential and inevitable firing is reset.

You might say that consciousness is not a simple product of physical reactions in the brain, because consciousness also has an effect upon itself.
That would allow some freedom of thought independent of direct causation.
But once you have that freedom, how could consciousness influence action?

It may solve one half of the mind body problem, but it doesn't solve the other half.
That's not a problem for people who believe that consciousness and belief in free will are accidental, and a delusion.
This idea tends to support that view, I think.

When scientists speak of random things, when asked to give an example they often qoute how a peice of matter ripe to radiate energy does so sporadically and randomly. I once said here, but if this is the case, then I state that I can make this radiation completely deterministic. Just observe the particle over some periods of time and you will freeze the evolution of the system. This is called the zeno-effect.

For some reason, I have always believed the universe is deterministic, that is to say that no thing happens without a reason, a cause and effect, action and reaction. This is also the view Einstein held, even to his death.

Now, if free will is an illusion, that would mean that the universe favours the idea that determinism exists.

Reiku. One problem with the idea of consciousness as a passive agent which mistakenly believes itself to be in control of events, is this:
Instead of finding rational and motivational reasons for human behaviour,
you would need to find scientific reasons for them,
primarily evolutionary reasons.

What would be the evolutionary advantage which makes it expedient for an orchestra to play Beethoven's music?
And for the individuals of that Orchestra to sit around in bow ties,
or nice silk dresses, depending upon sex,
playing musical instruments?

While I can't question the logic behind determinism, which is a hanging case,
the circumstantial evidence for the mind having some marginal controlling role is overwhelming.
I still think we are largely automatons,
and that we have little control over what we "decide" to do,
but it seems obvious to me that we can occasionally break free
from our garbage-in garbage-out programming.

What do you think?

Sorry Wellwisher, that I am not directly replying to you personally.
I don't understand your viewpoints.
Could you simplify what you are saying

Reiku. One problem with the idea of consciousness as a passive agent which mistakenly believes itself to be in control of events, is this:

That is the thing Captian, we are not in control.

In perspective of this conversation we are having, I was under the assumption that consciousess is not primal. In other words, we exist in the universe, simple. However, if determinism still exists, then being subsystems as we are in the deepest mathematical sense we still do not project the exact copy of the world around us. This must mean that we cannot control the world. Being part of a deterministic system is, I am afraid, not the same as being able to manifest it paths. We are manifest of the manifold (this mathematical object we call spacetime). It is with my highest belief that everything is already written into spacetime.

But we are automatons. For sure.

Bio-automatons, atleast.

Uunderstanding consciousness as well as we seem to understand the laws of physics looks like a quest which will never be successful. Considering Quantum weirdness, we might be getting close to not being able to understand all the laws of physics.

After all, there are limits to what a human (or any intelligent creature) can comprehend. Try your hand at visualizing 5D or 6D geometic objects.

Mathemetics provides knowledge of many/most characteristics of 6D objects, but no real understanding of such objects. The quest for understanding conciousness is way more difficult.

Uunderstanding consciousness as well as we seem to understand the laws of physics looks like a quest which will never be successful.

For now ;)

But we are automatons. For sure.

Bio-automatons, atleast.

You've missed my point. And it's a very important point, so try to get your head round it.

How do you explain the existence of things in the world which require consciousness to make sense? Such as music.

If you strip away any conscious control over the world, why and how would the world shape itself to satisfy desires of which it knows nothing?

If you look at the history of knowledge, consciousness tries to come up with explanations which continue to change with time. Reality did not change, rather conscious perception of reality changes with time. The composite perception of reality, is a blend of conscious observation and unconscious projection.

When the earth was the center of the universe, this reflected an unconscious projection which made it harder to see reality due to sensory expectation. Sensory expectation is when you already expect to see something due to conditioning.

This also occurs in science, because there is no rule that says the mind has to be calibrated. The mind is the most important tool of science, but no calibration method is used for this tool. This lack of calibration for mind, causes science to come out with theories that become obsolete now but were considered perfect in their day. There was a bias in the mind and the theory fit the sensory expectation created by the unconscious bias. This is true even today, since there is still no calibration requirement for the most important tool of science; mind. Science will continue to change as the bias changes.

As an analogy, say we were measuring the frequency of light. Our machine is not calibrated so when it says red, it could actually be yellow in reality. But since there is no rule in science that says we need to calibrate this machine to a standard but only to each other, since the color red is reproducible this will be called the truth. If you say yellow you will be suspect since you are not conforming to the bias that allows you to see red.

If consciousness does not have to be calibrated why bother calibrating all the analytical tools that help define reality? Is consciousness an important tool in science and how is it calibrated? Science does not have a good theory for consciousness to allow such calibration. This is why, keep an open mind.

In my experience the unconscious projection factor that biases the calibration of the mind is easiest to see at the frontiers of knowledge. The conscious mind is limited in adaptation due to not enough hard data. The unconscious tries to help out with some sensory expectations. There are always more theories at the frontiers than inside the box since it is harder to conditioned group mis-calibration leading to group sensory expectation, where data is thin.

A good example of sensory expectation are looking at the stars. The unconscious mind will project patterns such as the characters in the constellations. One sees the archer Orion in a small grouping of stars. This appear first in the imagination of the original creator of the idea. After herd conditioning, via education, everyone now expect to see this particular pattern. To change pattern is taboo as though this is hard reality. The calibration of the herd is set, even if wrong, so all the minds can reproduce the same sensory expectations.

The link of the OP is interesting and contains:

“… Human brains create vast repertoires of these symbols, conferring the “power to represent phenomena of unlimited complexity and thus to twist back and to engulf themselves via a strange loop.” Consciousness itself occurs when a system with such ability creates a higher-level symbol, a symbol for the ability to create symbols. That symbol is the self. The I. Consciousness. “You and I are mirages that perceive themselves,” Hofstadter writes. …

... consciousness is deeply involved in representing information (with symbols) and putting that information together to make sense of the world. It’s the brain’s information processing powers that allow the mind to symbolize itself. …”

While I think this is all true, it is a very incomplete concept of consciousness. In fact if that were all consciousness is then fully conscious computers are certainly possible at least some day. It is the omitted “qualia” that are the essence of consciousness. Pain being one of several different qualia that consciousness includes. I don´t mean a symbol for pain within a computational system; I mean the painful experience.

I forget who said it but when presented with ideas about consciousness as self referencing symbolic nets, thoughts about thoughts, etc. who remarked:
“You have never had a bad tooth ache, I conclude.”

The difference between future generations and hence very advanced and powerful computers and a conscious human is only the latter has qualia.
Hofstadter and others of his ilk, have thrown the qualia baby out with the bath water.

... How do you explain the existence of things in the world which require consciousness to make sense? Such as music. ...The pleasure one experiences when music of their culture is well played is another example of a qualia that is an essential part of consciousness, which no self referencing net of symbolic processing will ever have. - Not even if it is the world´s most skilled and knowlegable music critic.

As Chambers said "Consciousness is the hard problem." It is not solved by throwing the qualia baby out with the wash.

I think the first step towards and understanding of how the brain achieves consciousness is to understand how it achieves perceptions. The currently accepted theory of this (Perception "emerges" after many stages of neural computation processing the sensory input signals") is easily shown to be complete nonsense.*

To mention just one of a dozen or so reasons I have discussed, consider how can the visual perceptions one has in dreams emerge (when eyes are closed and you are sleeping in a dark room)? More neurological facts that contradict the current theory (and an alternative suggestion about how perception is achieved) are presented here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66

But this particular post is focused on showing that genuine free will MAY be possible despite the fact that the discharge of every nerve is DETERMINSTICALLY controlled by the laws of neurochemistry and physics. (May in caps as I am inclined to think genuine free will is a delusion almost all suffer under.)

---------------
* As well as to be totally without any "explanatory power" - I.e. how does it "emerge"? In what part of the brain does it emerge? - Fact is that all sensory inputs are decomposed into their various "characteristic" which are then sent to DIFFERENT parts of the brain for more processing. (For example color is processed in V4, motion in V5, etc.) These well separated characteristic NEVER are rejoined in any neural tissue, yet perception is of a unified world! “Emerges” is just so much verbal hand waving. - Tells nothing.

I forget who said it but when presented with ideas about consciousness as self referencing symbolic nets, thoughts about thoughts, etc. who remarked:
“You have never had a bad tooth ache, I conclude.”


Pain and pleasure are examples of the natural world giving negative or positive reinforcements to certain kinds of action.

Again that supports the proposition that the conscious mind has some real control over what the body does.
Otherwise what purpose would pain and pleasure have?
If all action was pre-determined, then what would it matter what you thought about it?
You would simply do what you were destined to to.

My opinion is that consciousness has evolved because there is some survival advantage for free will.
A degree of choice is statistically better to preserve the species than wholly determined action.

We have an over inflated idea of how much control we have over our actions,
but we are not wrong in thinking that we have some control over them.

The pleasure one experiences when music of their culture is well played is another example of a qualia that is an essential part of consciousness, which no self referencing net of symbolic processing will ever have. - Not even if it is the world´s most skilled and knowlegable music critic.

As Chambers said "Consciousness is the hard problem." It is not solved by throwing the qualia baby out with the wash.

I think the first step towards and understanding of how the brain achieves consciousness is to understand how it achieves perceptions. The currently accepted theory of this (Perception "emerges" after many stages of neural computation processing the sensory input signals") is easily shown to be complete nonsense.*

To mention just one of a dozen or so reasons I have discussed, consider how can the visual perceptions one has in dreams emerge (when eyes are closed and you are sleeping in a dark room)? More neurological facts that contradict the current theory (and an alternative suggestion about how perception is achieved) are presented here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66

But this particular post is focused on showing that genuine free will MAY be possible despite the fact that the discharge of every nerve is DETERMINSTICALLY controlled by the laws of neurochemistry and physics. (May in caps as I am inclined to think genuine free will is a delusion almost all suffer under.)

---------------
* As well as to be totally without any "explanatory power" - I.e. how does it "emerge"? In what part of the brain does it emerge? - Fact is that all sensory inputs are decomposed into their various "characteristic" which are then sent to DIFFERENT parts of the brain for more processing. (For example color is processed in V4, motion in V5, etc.) These well separated characteristic NEVER are rejoined in any neural tissue, yet perception is of a unified world! “Emerges” is just so much verbal hand waving. - Tells nothing.

Yes...


I spoke of the ''Hard Problem of Consciousness'' funnily enough in my 'Final Theory of Consciousness' thread.

Pain and pleasure are examples of the natural world giving negative or positive reinforcements to certain kinds of action.Descartes is recognized as the first dualist. (Sir John Eccles, Rhodes Scholar & 1963 neurology noble prize winner, was the last if only those well versed in neuro-anatomy, and physics are counted.) Descartes did not invent the term “psychological Zombie” but used the concept to support his dualistic POV. Descartes believe all non-human animals were biological automata, which certainly must be true at the level of a sea slug etc.

There is no way to know for sure that (if) other humans are conscious, have qualia, etc. - They could all be psychological zombies, which by definition only behave in every way* as if they had mental experiences. The subject, sometimes called the "other minds" problem, is one of continuing discussion:

“Why did creatures with qualia survive rather than zombie counterparts of those creatures? How could consciousness possibly have a function?” From: Section 6.2 of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

But I think your point about re-enforcement is a strong argument for evolution producing qualia. I am less sure that this argument supports evolution of consciousness. Why must there be a self aware self, an “I”, for pain etc to reinforce behaviors? Very primitive creatures can be conditioned. For example a light or sound pre-curser to an electrical shock can be learned and make their behavior such as to minimize or cancel the shock. It is hard to believe an amoeba is “conscious” etc. Surely they are biological automata with some learning capacity, but self aware and contemplative I strongly doubt.
----------
*I.e. if their hand is burned by hot object they quickly withdraw it and say “Ouch – that hurts.” I.e. behave exactly as a conscious human with qualia would.
Again that supports the proposition that the conscious mind has some real control over what the body does.Again, as expressed above, I don´t see that consciousness, or free will is required for pain and pleasure to inhibit or re-enforce certain behaviors.
Otherwise what purpose would pain and pleasure have? You answered that - qualia support survival behaviors, but again how is consciousness supported by qualia? If you think it is, how far down the evolutionary scale (all based on survival advantages) do you think consciousness is found?
If all action was pre-determined, then what would it matter what you thought about it?
You would simply do what you were destined to to.No, you would still, even as a psychological zombie, be strongly controlled in your behavior by external circumstances. You would wait to cross the street until the on coming car had passed, etc. There is a huge difference between "all action predetermined" and lack of free will. Even without free will and without consciousness one can avoid stepping in front of on coming cars, etc.
My opinion is that consciousness has evolved because there is some survival advantage for free will.
A degree of choice is statistically better to preserve the species than wholly determined action.Again, using this argument that evolution favors free will, consciousness, seem to apply far down the chain of evolution - a sea slug with free will and consciousness would have been favored over one that is just a biological automata.
We have an over inflated idea of how much control we have over our actions, but we are not wrong in thinking that we have some control over them.I tend to agree with this, but am not sure, how much of the control we have is an illusion. Exactly what is this "we" needs to be clarified before this can be discussed. Is there something more than the brain controlling you actions in response to its neural activity and its perception of external conditions?

I.e. are you a "CLOSET DUALIST" with a "we" that is not simply your brain, every nerve of which is controlled by laws of neurochemistry and physics?

...I spoke of the ''Hard Problem of Consciousness'' in my 'Final Theory of Consciousness' thread.I did not see it. Please give a link, (although even without having seen it, I´m quite confident it is NOT the final theory - will have unresolved problems, etc.)

I certainly HOPE that the enjoyment of well played music is not an "essential" part of consciousness, because it is not at all universal. There are people who suffer from severe forms of congenital and acquired amusia (see e.g. here (http://bigthink.com/ideas/11846)) which make all music completely unintelligible or unnoticeable to them. So far as I know, everyone agreement they are, nevertheless, conscious beings.


Interesting that we can trace the problem to a specific region of the brain.

Likewise, split brain experiments are also fascinating and seem to demonstrate that in in some sense the brain is synthesizing a single conscious experience from somewhat different experiences occurring in the brain.

I personally do not believe that we have a single consciousness across time...I do not believe that I or anyone else is truly the "same consciousness" that he or she was ten years ago. In that time, every atom in my body has been replaced, so whatever resides here now is certainly a physically different creature. I think we have the illusion of a single and persistent consciousness because that the alternative would be more burdensome and less advantageous. If I didn't believe that when I wake up tomorrow I will be the same "me" as I am today, I would make decisions today that are not in the best interest of the man who wakes up tomorrow. My own selfish nature would limit my ability to plan, and reduce my chances of reproductive success.

The changes in my consciousness from moment to moment or day to day are sufficiently small that a series of many "me's" elide one into the other seemingly seamlessly. Over a long stretch of time though, even minor changes add up.

I certainly HOPE that the enjoyment of well played music is not an "essential" part of consciousness, because it is not at all universal. There are people who suffer from severe forms of congenital and acquired amusia (see e.g. here (http://bigthink.com/ideas/11846)) which make all music completely unintelligible or unnoticeable to them. So far as I know, everyone agreement they are, nevertheless, conscious beings.Certainly I am not, and do not think anyone is claiming that all of the possible human qualia are essential to consciousness. In fact some people never feel pain. They typically don´t live to old age - detect their hand is burning by the smell, etc.

"... congenital analgesia, is one or more rare conditions where a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain. The conditions described here are separate from the HSAN group of disorders, which have more specific signs and etiology. ..." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain


... Interesting that we can trace the problem to a specific region of the brain. ...Yes, music is usually processed on the right side of the brain. For essentially 100% of naturally right handed people and most left handed people much of languge is processed on the left side of the brain. A large stroke there can leave them speechless but they can often still sing and enjoy music. Interestingly they usually can also curse - brief words like "shit"

Many people who stutter very badly can sing without any stuttering. The way I think about all this is that music and emotional speech are subdivisions of speech, normally processed / created on the right side of the brain. The makers of "close encounters" must have had similar ideas as the communication / "speech" of the alien space ship / men was music.

Again, as expressed above, I don´t see that consciousness, or free will is required for pain and pleasure to inhibit or re-enforce certain behaviours.

Interesting. Do you think that pain and pleasure can be felt by an unconscious creature?

On the Free Will-Determinism scale I would be to the right of the middle.
But there are many things in the world which would be very unlikely to occur through causation,
which are very easy to explain through consciousness having the ability to act upon the world.

Interesting. Do you think that pain and pleasure can be felt by an unconscious creature?Probably not but a yes answer is also possible - it depends upon your defintion of "unconscious." If conscious means to have a self concept / a self image / certrainly yes is correct. Most monkeys (all of the "new world" ones, if memory serves me correctly) give no indication that they have a self concept, but allmost all of the apes do. (Standard test is to put small mark on forehead and watch their reaction in a mirror. If they immediately reach up to touch or remove the mark, they have a self concept.)

My bird is very intellignet. I have carefully observed its reactions to its image in a mirrow for nearly 4 years now. First two or more years, she clearly did not understand that there was any relationship of the image to herself - gave hostile behavior to the image, when on my shoulder and I leaned forward to make the image approach, etc. None of this in the last year. Instead she will often go behind my neck, and peek out to see (I assume) if that other bird is still there. Also on occasion she will bob her head up and down and watch the image do the same. I think she is now becoming aware that it is her in the mirror - some indication of a self image is being formed, I think. As I said: She is very smart - smarter than a new world monkey I think, and certainly smarter than half the dogs I have owned!

Certainly she feels pain (or behaves as if) and pleasure even years ago when there was no indication she had any conscious self image. She even has years ago a soft chirp which clearly meant either thank you or that was nice. - Impossible for me to know which. Also the feathers on her cheeks alone can be made to stand out. We say "what a big beard" - I am pretty sure this is a non-vocal indication she is happy, at ease, calm, etc.

Clearly self consciousness is not required to feel pain, hunger, pleasure and probably many other qualia or at least behave as if they are felt.


there are many things in the world which would be very unlikely to occur through causation, which are very easy to explain through consciousness having the ability to act upon the world. Whether or not that is true also depends upon you definition of consciousness. There is a large and increasing body of evidence that most things you think you consciously decided, were decided before you are conscious of the decision. I.e. before you are aware of them and then later think you are consciously deciding - I.e. you only assume or have the illusion that you are consciously deciding. In fact brain contacting neuroelectrods permit the neurosurgen to know before you even start to consciously think about the decision, he knows from his records what you will decide. Typically this is a forced binary choice you are required to make - he knows before you do which you will chose - before in some cases you even know to decide!

I made a thread when some very strong evidence was published by the economists something like: "Free will - Ha, you will be the last to know of ´your´ decision." See it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2227485&postcount=1

SUMMARY: The evidence just keeps piling up that free will BY YOUR CONSCIOUS SELF is an illusion.
Probably humans, like much lessor animals, are just very complex biological machines. Here is a popular account of some recent findings: ...

I certainly HOPE that the enjoyment of well played music is not an "essential" part of consciousness, because it is not at all universal. There are people who suffer from severe forms of congenital and acquired amusia (see e.g. here (http://bigthink.com/ideas/11846)) which make all music completely unintelligible or unnoticeable to them. So far as I know, everyone agreement they are, nevertheless, conscious beings.


Interesting that we can trace the problem to a specific region of the brain.

Likewise, split brain experiments are also fascinating and seem to demonstrate that in in some sense the brain is synthesizing a single conscious experience from somewhat different experiences occurring in the brain.

I personally do not believe that we have a single consciousness across time...I do not believe that I or anyone else is truly the "same consciousness" that he or she was ten years ago. In that time, every atom in my body has been replaced, so whatever resides here now is certainly a physically different creature. I think we have the illusion of a single and persistent consciousness because that the alternative would be more burdensome and less advantageous. If I didn't believe that when I wake up tomorrow I will be the same "me" as I am today, I would make decisions today that are not in the best interest of the man who wakes up tomorrow. My own selfish nature would limit my ability to plan, and reduce my chances of reproductive success.

The changes in my consciousness from moment to moment or day to day are sufficiently small that a series of many "me's" elide one into the other seemingly seamlessly. Over a long stretch of time though, even minor changes add up.Interesting that you don't believe that it is the same consciousness 10 years in the past than it is today. What does it mean to have a different consciousness? Do you mean that your personality has changed over the years? Cause that I can certainly agree on, which I also think the majority of the people on earth can agree on. New experiences and new feelings make you react differently and feel different about yourself. But I wouldn't say that this is a different consciousness, I would say that it is the same consciousness that is conscious of different things.

I have always been consistently me over the years, such that I exist in my body, cause it seems that you're suggesting that there was another me before me, present in my body and that I didn't really exist at that time? Also that I at some time will fade to non-existence and another me will take over? I just can't believe that. Unless of course I don't really fade to non-existence but that it's always me that takes over...but that would mean that it is the same consciousness.

I don't think the overall structure changes that much, and I think that conscience is to a large degree a process of information that doesn't need to change at all just because the body does (the same stream of information could be sent even though the structures are different, the way to send it would simply be different, but the actual information would not). As such consciousness wouldn't change, it would simply adapt to be the same through different structures. Especially if those structures developed with minor changes throughout time.



Probably not but a yes answer is also possible - it depends upon your defintion of "unconscious." If conscious means to have a self concept / a self image / certrainly yes is correct. Most monkeys (all of the "new world" ones, if memory serves me correctly) give no indication that they have a self concept, but allmost all of the apes do. (Standard test is to put small mark on forehead and watch their reaction in a mirror. If they immediately reach up to touch or remove the mark, they have a self concept.)

My bird is very intellignet. I have carefully observed its reactions to its image in a mirrow for nearly 4 years now. First two or more years, she clearly did not understand that there was any relationship of the image to herself - gave hostile behavior to the image, when on my shoulder and I leaned forward to make the image approach, etc. None of this in the last year. Instead she will often go behind my neck, and peek out to see (I assume) if that other bird is still there. Also on occasion she will bob her head up and down and watch the image do the same. I think she is now becoming aware that it is her in the mirror - some indication of a self image is being formed, I think. As I said: She is very smart - smarter than a new world monkey I think, and certainly smarter than half the dogs I have owned!

Certainly she feels pain (or behaves as if) and pleasure even years ago when there was no indication she had any conscious self image. She even has years ago a soft chirp which clearly meant either thank you or that was nice. - Impossible for me to know which. Also the feathers on her cheeks alone can be made to stand out. We say "what a big beard" - I am pretty sure this is a non-vocal indication she is happy, at ease, calm, etc.

Clearly self consciousness is not required to feel pain, hunger, pleasure and probably many other qualia or at least behave as if they are felt.

Whether or not that is true also depends upon you definition of consciousness. There is a large and increasing body of evidence that most things you think you consciously decided, were decided before you are conscious of the decision. I.e. before you are aware of them and then later think you are consciously deciding - I.e. you only assume or have the illusion that you are consciously deciding. In fact brain contacting neuroelectrods permit the neurosurgen to know before you even start to consciously think about the decision, he knows from his records what you will decide. Typically this is a forced binary choice you are required to make - he knows before you do which you will chose - before in some cases you even know to decide!

I made a thread when some very strong evidence was published by the economists something like: "Free will - Ha, you will be the last to know of ´your´ decision." See it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2227485&postcount=1It depends a bit of what we mean by unconscious just as you said. I don't think that it's necessary for self-awareness to actually recognise yourself in the mirror. It might have to do with identity and 'self' but doesn't necessarily have to do with awareness. When I've been very tired or when I've had a very bad hangover I have sometimes felt as if a stranger was looking back at me in the mirror, nevertheless I was self-aware, so I don't think that it's related.

An inevitable consequence of this point of view is that consciousness doesn’t care what kind of information processors are doing all its jobs — whether nerve cells or transistors.
I would point out here that some people take the view that there's some sort of quantum mechanism in our brains which is preventing our traditional computer-based AI attempts from achieving anything resembling consciousness.

My personal belief is that consciousness has to do with symbolism so I was quite shocked to see Siegfried basically say the same thing. Once we're able to assign meaning to symbols, rather than simply associate symbols with actions, then we can assign a symbol to the ability of symbol assignment and call that consciousness.

I read about a study where a particular type of bird was threatened by red-breasted cardinals(?) and would attack them on sight. However, when a cardinal was masked with another color by the experimenters, he was safe. Also, when the attacking bird was shown that particular red on OTHER OBJECTS, he would attack them. Point being, we probably say to ourselves that the attacking bird is recognizing and attacking the red-breasted cardinal to keep his territory safe, when in actuality the bird probably just happened to have a greater chance of survival, via random evolutionary mutations, when he attacked the particular color red that happened to be the color of that area's dominant avian rival...without any real understanding of his own actions. In other words, RED = ATTACK wasn't a symbol assignment as much as a symbol response, and symbol responses are trivial for computers.

I've also thought that, perhaps, if and when we achieve computer-consciousness that they might come up with their own version of experiences and "emotions" that won't make complete sense to us. Perhaps they'll try in vain to describe to us their experience of flushing their cache or evaluating an algorithm, etc. Perhaps they'll claim that music appreciation, etc, is nonsense yet still demand that they are self-aware...

... if and when we achieve computer-consciousness that they might come up with their own version of experiences and "emotions" that won't make complete sense to us. Perhaps they'll try in vain to describe to us their experience of flushing their cache or evaluating an algorithm, etc. Perhaps they'll claim that music appreciation, etc, is nonsense yet still demand that they are self-aware...Are you saying that conceptually some complex manipulation of symbols can do more than make a symbol for pain become "activated." - I.e. that some complex collection of devices (probably electronic) can actually EXPERIENCE pain?

Are you saying that conceptually some complex manipulation of symbols can do more than make a symbol for pain become "activated." - I.e. that some complex collection of devices (probably electronic) can actually EXPERIENCE pain?
Absolutely, although my point above was that they may try describing other subjective experiences than the ones that we generally agree are "human" (such as pain). Since defense against physical damage seems to be a virtual prerequisite for complex Life it may seem that it's required for consciousness but that isn't the case IMO. That being said, in this case "pain" itself could just be the sensation a conscious computer feels as it executes its self-preservation algorithms while assessing and avoiding physical damage.

Interesting that you don't believe that it is the same consciousness 10 years in the past than it is today. What does it mean to have a different consciousness? Do you mean that your personality has changed over the years?

I think that what we think of as a consciousness is merely a way of describing the relation of the current "self" to past selves. Every molecule in my body will be different 10 years from now than it is today—almost none of the existing matter making up my body is likely to remain in place over that long period. (N.B. that our cells, at least in the cerebral cortex are never replaced, so far as we know, but the atoms and molecules that make up those cells are...in fact 98% of atoms in the body are replaced each year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583) on average, so taking 10 years is just being "safe.")

By way of analogy, imagine that you had a 16th century tapestry, made up of 15,000 individual threads. Every day, one single thread in the tapestry breaks and, periodically (say once/year) the broken threads are replaced with a new thread of the appropriate color to maintain the pattern. Now it's 2012, and more than 180,000 days have passed, and every single thread that was originally used in that tapestry has been replaced over time...indeed most of the threads in the piece were added in the 19th century or later, probably a majority in the 20th century. Do you think of that as being really "a 16th century tapestry"? Do you imagine that an appraiser would agree? The tapestry would certainly look the same as it once did, but would be open to being called a particular type of "copy" created by slow replacement of constituent parts.

If the material that makes up my brain is slowly replaced, then how can the consciousness generated by two entirely physically different lumps of matter be the same? You could posit that consciousness resides in the "soul", or some other non-physical source, if you want to invoke dualism, but I don't personally tend towards dualism.

I would concede that as a matter of semantics we call the interconnected continuum of brain functionality "consciousness" and typically describe as a a single unit, but only in the same sense that we identify the hypothetical tapestry as being "the same." As I mentioned, we see evidence of separate consciousnesses in split brain subjects in the same moment in time, which makes it not such a leap to consider that consciousnesses may be separated temporally as well.

If, as you suggest, you are defined by the information passing through your brain then I'd quibble that pure information is not consciousness. If we downloaded an exact copy of every scrap of information in your brain into a hypothetically sufficiently large hard drive (or even an active AI), you wouldn't imagine the hard drive or that AI would be "you", it would be maybe a damned good copy, but separate from "you" even if it were itself a conscious AI./*

-----
/* Slight difficulty in that computers do not store memories the way we do. In a human every time we recall a memory, we change it slightly in ways that we cannot detect internally (and the more often you recall something, as a result, the more distorted the memory gets), so your human self would start diverging from the perfect computerized copy pretty quickly... and then which one is "you"? The one with the increasingly distorted memories?
-----

In short, my view is that our consciousness is a physical effect of a physical brain, so as the brain is slowly replaced, atom by atom, I don't see how I can hold on to the illusion (which I admit is a damnably persistent illusion that "feels" very real to me) that "I" am one singular consciousness that has existed for a couple of decades.

@Billy
Re your definition of consciousness as requiring self awareness, tested with a mirror, that seems to me to be an arbitrary rule. That's a spatial awareness that will only be passed by certain kinds of animals, and even then not always instantly.

Animals which don't pass the test, will eventually treat the mirror image as meaningless. You can put up a mirror in your garden to scare cats away.
It will work for about a week.

That animals suffer pain is shown by the fact that they cry out, grimace, show fear etc.
One of the things you do with an animal which is suffering pain is to reassure it and make it confident that you are helping it.

A dog for example, has no idea what a human being is.
It behaves as though you were a dog.
Even such a rudimentary understanding of what the world is like , does not make an animal more or less conscious of simple physical sensations.

If you are equating consciousness with specifically human abilities, that would be begging the question.

By way of analogy, imagine that you had a 16th century tapestry, made up of 15,000 individual threads. Every day, one single thread in the tapestry breaks and, periodically (say once/year) the broken threads are replaced with a new thread of the appropriate color to maintain the pattern. Now it's 2012, and more than 180,000 days have passed, and every single thread that was originally used in that tapestry has been replaced over time...indeed most of the threads in the piece were added in the 19th century or later, probably a majority in the 20th century. Do you think of that as being really "a 16th century tapestry"? Do you imagine that an appraiser would agree? The tapestry would certainly look the same as it once did, but would be open to being called a particular type of "copy" created by slow replacement of constituent parts.



What about the River Thames?
It has different water every day. Is it a different river?

Intelligent localized consciousness could be a function of computational complexity but there might be some non-algorithmic aspect to consciousness that we haven't figured out yet.

Some philosophers claim that the universe must be intelligent because intelligent beings[the parts] could only be a reflection of the attributes of the medium of emergence[the whole] but that is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of composition

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

Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and cannot be replicated by a digital computing machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Ray Kurzweil claims that machines will pass the Turing test by 2029

http://singularityhub.com/2011/04/04/kurzweil-is-confident-machines-will-pass-turing-test-by-2029-video-2/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

What about the River Thames?
It has different water every day. Is it a different river?

As Heraclitus said: "You can never step into the same river twice; for new waters are always flowing on to you."

What is a "river" gets to the semantic question. If we define a river as a relationship of water and some specific land (whatever specific water molecules may be there) then the Thames is a river. It's no different than saying that Spiderman and Thor were both "summer blockbusters" even though they are different "movies."

In that sense, I agree that a single consciousness makes sense...a purely semantic one that defines what appears to be continuous — but as for the notion that consciousness is a fundamental property of what it is to be a singular "me", it's not coherent, because you are never thinking about precisely the same "me". You are always stepping into a new river in the Heraclitan sense.

If we want to define consciousness as merely a ever changing thing that does not describe a truly continuous property of the "self" across time, no problem. Either way the quintessence of my current self is not truly continued into the future. We agree that future me is the same as present me only as a matter of definition and convenience, but the biological machine that I am today will be gone.

Think of it this way, in a sense (QM aside) it may be in principle possible to gather almost every atom that was in your body 10 years ago, and reconstruct a second "you"...just as if one had all the original discarded threads of the tapestry I mentioned, one might be able to weave them back into the 16th century "original." Since the reconstructed you would be made of the same stuff in the same configuration you were a decade ago, on what basis could you claim that you are not a copy of the newly constructed you?

Or, another way to think of it. Suppose I replaced every cell in your brain with an artificial analog...a nanoprocessor/machine that functioned the same way as neurons and glia. Would the person with an artifical brain still be the "same" person just because it's consciousness feels continuous to it? This is the conundrum of the possibility of quantum teleportation. The teleportation doesn't move any matter from place to place, just the raw information. You step into the teleporter at one end, and your physical existence is annihilated, and a new set of atoms walks out of the teleporter at the other end, feeling exactly like "you" and having a continuity of perceived consciousness.

There is no one answer to this, but once one admits that our physical substance changes pretty much annually, the only satisfying way I see to believe in a static "me" is to believe in a soul, a God, a Platonian realm in which I exist as a pure concept (that is only "reflected" in this physical universe), magic, or or some other supernatural explanation for how I remain "me" in a fundamental sense. If I am not my brain, then when my brain is utterly destroyed, I must remain...somewhere, right?

@Billy
Re your definition of consciousness as requiring self awareness, tested with a mirror, that seems to me to be an arbitrary rule. That's a spatial awareness that will only be passed by certain kinds of animals, and even then not always instantly. ...I was not defining consciousness, but noting that the answer to your question depends upon what definition you chose. You had asked:
"Do you think that pain and pleasure can be felt by an unconscious creature? "

As many think "unconscious" is the state humans enter after drugs (or strong blow to the head) are given to make operations painless, my quick answer, with that definition, was "no;" however, one can understand "unconscious" as any non-conscious state, for example when human is asleep or in the context we were discussion the "mental state" of some lesser than human animal.

This requires some exploration of the possible characteristic of "conscious." If that is just being aware of your environment, then most life forms are conscious as they respond to changes in their environment. (Many flowers open with the dawn and close at night) Amoebas are quite responsive to their environment. Also note that humans fail to respond to some changes in their environment - for example when radiation of a near by cell phone starts passing thru their body (and the hundreds of EM of radio, TV, & communication systems. Bees sense and utilize the polarization of ambient light to locate the sun when sky is completely clouded over. (Where the sun is - is part of system they use to tell other bee where the new source of nectar they have just discovered is.)

Thus defining conscious as having some incomplete awareness of your environment, is not a very useful definition of consciousness, as much too all encompassing. Most don´t want that term to include trees, flowers & amoeba etc.

Thus many want to impose the requirement that the conscious creature must have a sense of self as well as some awareness of its environment. That may be too restrictive as only humans pass that test with certainty. The standard test (not mine) for the presence of a self awareness is the mirror test with fore head marked that I told of. Most apes and quite a few mammals can pass it. If memory serves, dolphins can. If that is your definition of conscious, then most animals are not conscious - would be "unconscious" so after this discussion of the problem, the answer to your question became yes.

I am sure some creatures don´t have any concept of self - especially those like earth worms and star fish which can be physically divided and regenerate wholes again (Each of the five arms of a star fish can make a new star fish initially with four tiny arms and new body.) Surely they are not five copies of one self aware self.

@pandemonae

A "River" and a "Me" are quite good to compare.
Perhaps Heraclitus was aware of the similarities when he chose the subject.

A river is given a name because it has some qualities which continue, despite having others which change. It has a birth, in some muddy highland ground, it follows a course which, once it has established itself, is fairly fixed, and eventually empties itself into the sea, and is no longer a river.

It does not matter to humans that it consists of different molecules of water every day.

This requires some exploration of the possible characteristic of "conscious." If that is just being aware of your environment, then most life forms are conscious as they respond to changes in their environment. (Many flowers open with the dawn and close at night) Amoebas are quite responsive to their environment. Also note that humans fail to respond to some changes in their environment - for example when radiation of a near by cell phone starts passing thru their body (and the hundreds of EM of radio, TV, & communication systems. Bees sense and utilize the polarization of ambient light to locate the sun when sky is completely clouded over. (Where the sun is - is part of system they use to tell other bee where the new source of nectar they have just discovered is.)



There's a difference between reacting to one's environment and being conscious of reacting to it. In human beings, there are both conscious and unconscious reactions to the environment.
We understand the difference without much difficulty.

Sometimes the speed of the action is so important, that there is no time for thought. If you touch a hotplate by accident, your reflex pulling away will not be a conscious decision.

... the quintessence of my current self is not truly continued into the future. We agree that future me is the same as present me only as a matter of definition and convenience, but the biological machine that I am today will be gone. In my POV, it is "gone" when you are in deep dreamless sleep. I.e. only your body, not "you" exist then; however the "you" at 8AM one day still exist, but slightly changed" by 8PM that day. (except when "you" have had some "transforming experience" during the day like former atheist accepting Christ as god etc.) I.e. as the years pass "you" evolve, change, but are still the same consciousness.


...Think of it this way, in a sense (QM aside) it may be in principle possible to gather almost every atom that was in your body 10 years ago, and reconstruct a second "you"...just as if one had all the original discarded threads of the tapestry I mentioned, one might be able to weave them back into the 16th century "original." Since the reconstructed you would be made of the same stuff in the same configuration you were a decade ago, on what basis could you claim that you are not a copy of the newly constructed you? There is much more to one than the material constituents. For example the concentration gradients of neurotransmitters in synaptic clefs and what molecules happen to be at present bound to post synaptic receptor sites not to mention the influxes of Na+ ions currently present in axons firing. Etc.

IMHO, "You" are an information process in a body which is responsive to some parts of the changing environment. Not that body.

As all atoms of any type are identical the substitution of one for another of the same kind is not of any significance. - Does not make you different. What makes you age, both physically and mentally, is the structure these atoms form. - That changes with time. Also note that the essence of "you" is in the details of these ion neurotransmitter flows as well as that brain structure. It surely is impossible to measure all these flows at all parts of the brain without drastic disturbing them, so never will a teleporter exist which can re-create you. No worry about which is "you."

There's a difference between reacting to one's environment and being conscious of reacting to it. In human beings, there are both conscious and unconscious reactions to the environment. ...Does the part I made bold require that you have a concept of self? I think not. For example a sand crab will scury back to its hole as you approach - clearly is reacting to its environment, and also clearly knows where its legs are as they move, etc. In some sense, is aware of or conscious of fact it is reacting to its environment, but I doubt it has any concept of self. - would fail any modified mirror test. etc.

For me consciousness is much more than just being aware you are reacting to environment change. I.e. there isn´t any "you" in there (appoligizes to Virgina Wolf, I think)

Oh my this thread has been buisy... thank you all.

Need to read all these responses now, good fun!

I did not see it. Please give a link, (although even without having seen it, I´m quite confident it is NOT the final theory - will have unresolved problems, etc.)

I will find it. My theory is not ''the final theory of consciousness''.... it is my own, meaning I will not be presenting any more theories on consciousnesss... but I will find it now, and link it in the next post billy.

Here you go Billy. I hope you find it an interesting read. It is an accumilation of many years of work and problem solving.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112069

I certainly HOPE that the enjoyment of well played music is not an "essential" part of consciousness, because it is not at all universal.

Really?

It has been one ''favourite'' assumption of string theorists that quantum strings play a melody which makes reality.

It is an analogy at best. But still, one used frequently.

(Of course, string theory is nonesense however. It maybe placed by rigourous theorems but there are no observable things we can obtain from it).

Certainly I am not, and do not think anyone is claiming that all of the possible human qualia are essential to consciousness.

Mmmmm... I see your arguement but I do not support it. Qualia it seems likely, is essential to consciousness. Let me explain.

Qualia is essential to experience. Experience is essential to projection. Projection is clearly equivalent to the self.

Intelligent localized consciousness could be a function of computational complexity but there might be some non-algorithmic aspect to consciousness that we haven't figured out yet.

Some philosophers claim that the universe must be intelligent because intelligent beings[the parts] could only be a reflection of the attributes of the medium of emergence[the whole] but that is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of composition

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

Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic and cannot be replicated by a digital computing machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Ray Kurzweil claims that machines will pass the Turing test by 2029

http://singularityhub.com/2011/04/04/kurzweil-is-confident-machines-will-pass-turing-test-by-2029-video-2/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

Khan, are you my long lost twin...


... I thought I recognized that handsome avatar :P

What about the River Thames?
It has different water every day. Is it a different river?

Good question.

Excellent one in fact.

Maybe something to note, is that the body completely rids itself (now what is it... oh my mind, do not fail me please... is it 10 years?) of all the particles it is made of, replaced by new particles.

Thus, if the ''me'' is not really the same ''me'' in 10 years, this is like particles flowing in a stream. The particles at one point making such a flux of water is not the same as the particles which passage a flow of water later. Is it the same river?

In equal sense, when my body has rid itself of all the particles that once made me, am I still me?

The answer is obvious, but Cap. Kremmins question was actually an interesting case of philosophy.

I think that what we think of as a consciousness is merely a way of describing the relation of the current "self" to past selves. Every molecule in my body will be different 10 years from now than it is today—almost none of the existing matter making up my body is likely to remain in place over that long period. (N.B. that our cells, at least in the cerebral cortex are never replaced, so far as we know, but the atoms and molecules that make up those cells are...in fact 98% of atoms in the body are replaced each year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583) on average, so taking 10 years is just being "safe.")I don't see why it matters that it is the same atoms and the same cells. If they are configured the same as before then they give rise to the same thing. That the old components are switched to new components of the same function doesn't change the function of the system, other than preserving it.



By way of analogy, imagine that you had a 16th century tapestry, made up of 15,000 individual threads. Every day, one single thread in the tapestry breaks and, periodically (say once/year) the broken threads are replaced with a new thread of the appropriate color to maintain the pattern. Now it's 2012, and more than 180,000 days have passed, and every single thread that was originally used in that tapestry has been replaced over time...indeed most of the threads in the piece were added in the 19th century or later, probably a majority in the 20th century. Do you think of that as being really "a 16th century tapestry"? Do you imagine that an appraiser would agree? The tapestry would certainly look the same as it once did, but would be open to being called a particular type of "copy" created by slow replacement of constituent parts.Yes it would be a copy, but the question is if the consciousness cares if it is being the copy or the original, if it is the same information then it doesn't matter what words are used to form it. I can copy this text hundred times and each will have the same meaning. I think that to a great extent consciousness is the meaning of information.



If the material that makes up my brain is slowly replaced, then how can the consciousness generated by two entirely physically different lumps of matter be the same? You could posit that consciousness resides in the "soul", or some other non-physical source, if you want to invoke dualism, but I don't personally tend towards dualism.Well I've lived longer than 10 years and I'm still the same. That should convince you, no point going against personal confirmation even if it can't be confirmed or evidenced externally. In fact, we only have personal confirmation when it comes to consciousness as it is completely subjective.



I would concede that as a matter of semantics we call the interconnected continuum of brain functionality "consciousness" and typically describe as a a single unit, but only in the same sense that we identify the hypothetical tapestry as being "the same." As I mentioned, we see evidence of separate consciousnesses in split brain subjects in the same moment in time, which makes it not such a leap to consider that consciousnesses may be separated temporally as well.Yeah, I can agree on this. But I think that some drastic change would have to happen during that time, like a damage to the head or something so that the system is drastically changed. I don't think small changes changes "who's in your body".

Also, that others can inhibit your body still opens up the possibility that two configurations can be the same in the world.

I think that the number of consciousness possible (the number of I's possible) isn't infinite. That there is a limit and that this is why partial changes of the brain and what can be called minor "adjustments" of the system doesn't give rise to a change of consciousness in that way that someone else possess your body.


If, as you suggest, you are defined by the information passing through your brain then I'd quibble that pure information is not consciousness. If we downloaded an exact copy of every scrap of information in your brain into a hypothetically sufficiently large hard drive (or even an active AI), you wouldn't imagine the hard drive or that AI would be "you", it would be maybe a damned good copy, but separate from "you" even if it were itself a conscious AI./*

-----
/* Slight difficulty in that computers do not store memories the way we do. In a human every time we recall a memory, we change it slightly in ways that we cannot detect internally (and the more often you recall something, as a result, the more distorted the memory gets), so your human self would start diverging from the perfect computerized copy pretty quickly... and then which one is "you"? The one with the increasingly distorted memories?
----- Why would it be seperated from you if it had exactly the same information? What would it take to be a different consciousness? That one single atom was replaced? Then it wouldn't be the same you, and each you must be completely original.

In fact, that this could happen is a pretty good argument that consciousness can't depend only on the physical aspects. There must be some unphysical selection if two systems are exactly alike physically.



In short, my view is that our consciousness is a physical effect of a physical brain, so as the brain is slowly replaced, atom by atom, I don't see how I can hold on to the illusion (which I admit is a damnably persistent illusion that "feels" very real to me) that "I" am one singular consciousness that has existed for a couple of decades.Yet each atom is the same atom, each electron is the same electron, there is no difference to the basic parts that makes you up. The difference is, as always, in the configuration. And indeed, it can be the same, but consciousness can't be only physical.

Oh dear... I hold my head in shame trying to read it all too quick... I am sorry Pand... I did not realize you mentioned this first.

@Billy
I'm sure that you are right when you say that many creatures have no consciousness or awareness of sensation at all. A periwinkle, glued onto a rock, has little requirement for thought.

A creature would require a brain I think.

I wouldn't have thought a concept of self was something required for consciousness at all.
The concept has more to do with language, thinking about the experience, rather than experiencing.
The experience of self as opposed to the concept of self doesn't require language.

Here you go Billy. I hope you find it an interesting read. It is an accumilation of many years of work and problem solving.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112069Thanks for the link, but your ideas there are mainly without merit.

For example, other than analogy wave function collapsing to one choice among several being made, what evidence is there that quantum physic has any role in nerve firings, which surely is a major part of making consciousness?

To make meaningful suggestion, you need to provide some supporting evidence, not just your rambling thoughts or selective quotes of what others have said.

@Billy
I'm sure that you are right when you say that many creatures have no consciousness or awareness of sensation at all. A periwinkle, glued onto a rock, has little requirement for thought.

A creature would require a brain I think.

Hello again friend.


Well, sure, billy is right.

A great deal of creatures are, as the theory goes, are really driven by genetics. The basic instincts of survival, unaware of their surroundings and the questions of its own life. This is self-reflection of course, a core pivotal connection to consciousness itself.

We could afterall, be talking about an EBE of insufficient nervious activity that there is a brain but does not suffice to meet the boundaries of what is required for a consciousness.

There are three animals I personally am aware of that have self-awareness. Those being the ape (human), dolphins (which are remarkably intelligent) and Eliphants which also carry a remarkable set of intelligent attributes. Stick a red note on their foreheads, place these creatures in front of a mirror and each will know that is attached to their foreheads. This is self-reflection and each animal here therefore mentioned all recognize this phenomenon.

Thanks for the link, but your ideas there are mainly without merit.

For example, other than analogy wave function collapsing to one choice among several being made, what evidence is there that quantum physic has any role in nerve firings, which surely is a major part of making consciousness?

To make meaningful suggestion, you need to provide some supporting evidence, not just your rambling thoughts or selective quotes of what others have said.

Yes, I have admitted the wave function is an analogy... From your reply, I realize you have taken time to read my work.

I put up my hands on that specific point, and claim you are right. However, it is not based on baseless assumptions, only that if my sub-dimension theory is to hold, that we are not outside quantum physics. Consider that as an axiom and then follows the assumptions, or linked analogies.

However, I have not based this on merely ramblings. If you have read that post, you will see it is not based on ''ramblings'' ..... that is in my eyes, a pretty harsh analysis of what I consider, a mystery solver using evidence and current theories.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it but my speculations on the wave function part and determinism fall no shorter than the analogy I stated earlier on string theory here:

''Really?

It has been one ''favourite'' assumption of string theorists that quantum strings play a melody which makes reality.

It is an analogy at best. But still, one used frequently.''

Billy.. sorry... one last thing I need to answer:

''what evidence is there that quantum physic has any role in nerve firings, which surely is a major part of making consciousness?''

read my part on the quantum zeno effect. This should answer this specific queery. I am supported by another scientist.

Billy. T asked:
‘‘What evidence is there that quantum physic has any role in nerve firings, which surely is a major part of making consciousness?''

...
read my part on the quantum zeno effect. This should answer this specific queery. I am supported by another scientist.The fact that bowling balls rolling down a lane to knock over pins, is in principle describable in QM terms is not any indication that QM is playing any role in the very classical problem.

Likewise the "depolarization pulse" that maintains its structure as it travels down a axon, changing the interior from ~70 mV negative to briefly a few mV positive as the Na+ influx "over shoots" before the selective gates close again is very well understood and described without any reference to QM effects.

Naming an QM effect, especially one that refers to continuous measurement of quantum wave function in a pure Eigen state A to force it to collapse back (or arrest its evolution) into pure Eigen state A (instead of evolve to be a mix of A B) is non-sense for anything to due with the brain or consciousness. There is no need for description of nerves in QM terms; any more than there is need of describing rolling bowling balls in QM terms. Further more, there is no continuous measurement being made.

You are misapplying QM. The part that applies to nerve is: "the correspondence principle states that the behavior of systems described by the theory of quantum mechanics (or by the old quantum theory) reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers."
Quote from first sentence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

Certainly a nerve has a "large number" of atoms and if foolishly considered to be a QM system there are more than 100 million wave fuctions that recreate the classical description.

consciousness is based on the neural connections between all facets of the brain

so the " loop " is no surprise really , analyzing , without getting stuck hopefully

There are three animals I personally am aware of that have self-awareness. Those being the ape (human), dolphins (which are remarkably intelligent) and Eliphants which also carry a remarkable set of intelligent attributes. Stick a red note on their foreheads, place these creatures in front of a mirror and each will know that is attached to their foreheads. This is self-reflection and each animal here therefore mentioned all recognize this phenomenon.

What if you wrote dolphin on the ape's note, elephant on the dolphin's note, and ape on the elephant's note? Then show them the mirror.
That would really confuse them.

“ Originally Posted by Reiku

There are three animals I personally am aware of that have self-awareness. Those being the ape (human), dolphins (which are remarkably intelligent) and Eliphants which also carry a remarkable set of intelligent attributes. Stick a red note on their foreheads, place these creatures in front of a mirror and each will know that is attached to their foreheads. This is self-reflection and each animal here therefore mentioned all recognize this phenomenon.





What if you wrote dolphin on the ape's note, elephant on the dolphin's note, and ape on the elephant's note? Then show them the mirror.
That would really confuse them.

no they wouldn't

since they all recognize themselves

I didn't think of that.

“ Originally Posted by Reiku

There are three animals I personally am aware of that have self-awareness. Those being the ape (human), dolphins (which are remarkably intelligent) and Eliphants which also carry a remarkable set of intelligent attributes. Stick a red note on their foreheads, place these creatures in front of a mirror and each will know that is attached to their foreheads. This is self-reflection and each animal here therefore mentioned all recognize this phenomenon.

If you consider what is happening in the above, the reflection, although expressing as aspect of the critter (his image) it is detached from the critter. The mirror breaks the one animal into two separate things; subject and object. He is aware of this separation but also how they are the same.

If I sneeze, this is not due to my willpower or even my choice. I see a two=part distinction, in the mirror of my mind. One aspect just acted on their own, without my help. I the observer of this saw it happen.

Human self awareness is different that the ape or dolphin because it does not need the sensory systems, so the distinction into subject and object can occur. This can occur inside the mind via the mind's eye (figurative for imagination).

I can say to myself (visualizing), if I hypothetically had a red mark on my forehead and I had a mirror I could see it and know that was me. I will then get a mirror and use my eyes to verify this. In my mind's eye, I would look at my body in the third person, so I can differentiate this source of the data, from the POV in my mind from which I will observe.

If I notice my eye twitch, an object is twitching and I the observer is watching and collecting data. This is self awareness 1.0. To get up to 3.0, you would need to learn the language of the inner self so you can translate the symbol.

Pain being one of several different qualia that consciousness includes. I don´t mean a symbol for pain within a computational system; I mean the painful experience. The experience and the symbol are identical - note that pain itself has no direct relationship with whatever is causing it, but is instead assigned or generated as an informative entity - a symbol, the the perhaps unfortunate terminology of Mr Seigfried.

Missing from the description there, of consciousness as a symbol, are the layers of symbols between it and the nearest non-symbolic entity, and the dimension of time. Pain forms at a fairly low, basal level of this hierarchy.

The levels introduce logical dislocations - the possibility of paradox by referring "through" a higher level to the pattern on a lower one, etc.

I've always preferred to call them patterns, to avoid a certain confusion with signage and maps and the like, and to emphasize that they take place over time. Maps are static, the "symbols" of the mind are in continual creation and change - and they can disappear, be recreated, etc.

The experience and the symbol are identical - note that pain itself has no direct relationship with whatever is causing it, but is instead assigned or generated as an informative entity - a symbol, the the perhaps unfortunate terminology of Mr Seigfried.
So pain is the symbol?

The conscious symbol for "Something undesirable happend at this location at this time"?

So pain is the symbol? In this guys language, pain is a symbol - yes.