In a sense, every non living object has "data storage" insofar as data is understood as built-in compliance with stable laws. Eg a barrel will implode if the liquid pressure is manipulated, a rock will fall if you drop it etc. Likewise a sensor stores information in a neutral manner, without there being a difference in levels between where x is stored and where x is picked up, a parallel to lack of consciousness.
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
From the outside it very well might, but we know how the insides work and there is zero awareness there. The lighthouse is not aware of the fact that it is a lighthouse, it is not aware of its purpose in life, it is not aware what an ocean is, or a boat, or a whale. There is zero awareness going on there, it's a very simple mechanical clockwork taking inputs and spitting out outputs.
A human brain leads to us analyzing internal and external stimuli and questioning it. "Who am I? What am I doing here? Hey there's a dog over there, I wonder what its bark sounds like". This is the difference for me between consciousness and something like an automated lighthouse.
Something like a sperm whale would be harder to pin down.. but.. sperm whales seem to have awareness of external stimuli certainly. They communicate with other whales and sing to each other. Do they have internal awareness? That is the real question I think, and not one we could easily answer. I suspect that they do have internal awareness, but I don't know how you'd prove such a thing. A mirror test? Turing test, like you said? Either way, we just don't know how their brain works, on an internal level, whereas we know exactly how a lighthouse works. And of course we don't really know how our brain works either, in the context of consciousness, but we know that we have internal awareness, as well as external, due to the fact that we are humans and we know what's going on inside our heads due to the fact that the insides of our heads are us.
Sorry to belabour the same point, but I can do this with the first paragraph:
From the outside it very well might, but we know how the insides work and there is zero consciousness there. The lighthouse is not conscious of the fact that it is a lighthouse, it is not conscious of its purpose in life, it is not conscious of what an ocean is, or a boat, or a whale. There is zero consciousness going on there, it's a very simple mechanical clockwork taking inputs and spitting out outputs.
Neither paragraph is closer or further from explaining the difference, or how we can use that to make calls on sperm whales and ants.
Good stuff! The problem from the above discussion seems to be fixing a definition for consciousness that includes a hard line between conscious and not conscious. All those shades of grey make it difficult to draw such a line. Rather than asking is this or that conscious, why not ask to what degree is this or that conscious? That is simpler and likely easier.
I would say the first question is what features are we looking for when placing objects on this scale? Is it capacity to sense? Capacity to remember? Capacity to decide? Capacity to effect change? Capacity to think of a possible future as better and work toward t that goal? The capacity for us to look "under the hood"?
From the OP, which I re-read. Samson is quoting someone else about consciousness
I would say that he is describing the evolution of consciousness (EoC), as well as, the evolution of life (EoL). The EoL did not lead to consciousness. They evolved hand in hand together each one growing more and more complex over time.
If one looks at the Tree of Life we already can put markers for each of those on it. As we learn more we can move those markers around. The ability to sense would be pretty old. We csan only surmise about extinct forms of life based on what we about life today. How aware are sunflowers of day and night? Sunny vs cloudy days? Do Aspen groves communicate? We can work our way up the tree and the different degrees of capability as we go. Octopus vs dolphin? Far apart on the tree but how different are they in consciousness?
Evolution is pretty slow and higher levels of complexity can show up and then disappear (mass extinctions?). In any case, it does appear to me that human levels of consciousness evolved just like our physical forms and are built upon all that has gone before. To be where we are today we still rely on the most primitive of cellular consciousness as well as the the even more primitive consciousness of chemical properties.
When you say "evolved hand in hand" and "evolved just like our physical forms" what does that mean?
I would say our physical forms evolved by being slightly different from each other, passing on these differences to their children and competing in how successfully they do it, with those that pass on their differences to the most children "winning". This can be viewed on the individual level or the individual gene level. In the later, the "Selfish gene" concept popularised by Richard Dawkins, we as individual humans can be considered as little more than vectors with which our genes compete. Are consciousnesses doing that?
Evolution is a process of change, adaptation and survival that uses physical forms. If consciousness is a sense of "self", awareness, responsiveness, then it too has evolved along with its physical forms, Physical forms of all kinds evolved some appropriate level of "self", awareness, responsiveness as befitted their situation and the change, adaptation and survival that impacts physical forms also impacted consciousness. With the assumption that consciousness is inherent and omnipresent, it moves along at both the individual level and any higher grouping one wants to assemble.
Hippos, elephants, and lions are all late model evolved life, but each has its own consciousness and capabilities. Humans all have pretty similar make up physically, but we are not identical. Our mental capabilites are also similar but not identical. Our mental make up and how we each see the world and our places in it are similar, but not identical. (just ask my wife!). Consciousness "happens" at both the macro level and the individual level.
Hippos, elephants, and lions are all late model evolved life, but each has its own consciousness and capabilities. Humans all have pretty similar make up physically, but we are not identical. Our mental capabilites are also similar but not identical. Our mental make up and how we each see the world and our places in it are similar, but not identical. (just ask my wife!). Consciousness "happens" at both the macro level and the individual level.
So when you are saying "evolved like us" you are talking in a more "Gaia Hypothesis" way than a Darwinian "the fittest survive" type way. That certainly makes sense.
The question remains how does it help us?
@Samson , I wonder if you'd say that was closer to Socrates responding to a (eg gnostic) view about a god of material and another god of mental objects, or Skeletor commenting on how 80s He-man dolls having a hook and a rubber band to allow the body to turn is related to biological development.
Unfortunately I am probably more familiar with Skeletor and He-man than Socrates.
But you know that you are, so wouldn't that make you tied to Socrates too?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It wasn't meant to explain the difference though or shed any light on how we'd determine if sperm whales are conscious or not. It was only meant to highlight that a lighthouse is not conscious and why.
We designed lighthouses, we know exactly how they work, and are as such able to say whether they are conscious or not. If we had designed sperm whales from the ground up and/or were able to experience life as they do, we would be a lot closer to answering that question.
Two different questions with two very different approaches.
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
Consciousness, if anything, is meta itself.
I don't think I said "evolved like us", but I did point to two aspects to evolution: physical forms and consciousness. I do understand Darwinian evolution but the whole Gaia thing is not something I pay attention to. IIRC that is about a greater earth-level consciousness.
How does consciousness help us? Or how does thinking about it in this manner help us?
What does that mean?
I was referring to this
How does thinking about it in this manner help us. I am thinking about which things get which rights, but "helps us understand who and what we are" is good as well.
I consider consciousness a vital component contributing to our survival and dominance as a species through the ages, perhaps the most vital. Us debating the meaning of it all and whatever, is a side-effect of having consciousness at this level. I don't think it wasn't intended for harboring such thoughts and doubts, that's just a 'happy accident' that has benefitted us in ways not directly related to our survival.
Similar threads
