Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?

[Birdjaguar]

What is awareness and self awareness? Once again how one defines these words is closely linked to how one will view consciousness. Which, of course will lead to how one defines "self". We see our selves as distinct entities when in fact we are made up of millions of cells that are not actually us, but other entities.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You are confusing/conflating emotions and intelligence.
Animals very much CAN feel and express emotions - it's a fact.
But whether emotions ALSO contribute to (or constitute) actual self-awareness and consciousness, I'd say: NO.
The way I see it, emotions are simply signals with which one specimen tells another specimen how to instinctively interact between them.
Kinda like "fire is hot, anger means danger", so to speak - where "hot fire" and "angry dog" are BOTH instinctual expressions (and/or reactions), just of different complexity.
Again, it's just MY opinion.

Okay, I'll agree that it's just YOUR opinion.

I've had at least one cat continuously since October 8, 1977. For many of the years since then I've had at least 3 cats, and some were of the same family (3 generations). Do me the courtesy of accepting that when it comes to cats, I know what I'm talking about.

I've seen some of my cats problem-solve when presented with a new situation. They weren't running on emotion. They were thinking it through.

 

[Akka]

You are entitled to an opinion. So am I. And mine is, that it IS relevant. In fact, it's where "consciousness" actually expresses itself in the first place. Well, in MY opinion.

That's not an opinion, that's the definition. Being conscious doesn't require to invente something.

 

[Somebody613]

What is awareness and self awareness? Once again how one defines these words is closely linked to how one will view consciousness. Which, of course will lead to how one defines "self". We see our selves as distinct entities when in fact we are made up of millions of cells that are not actually us, but other entities.

It's a "me" opinion, but I don't see any better way to single out consciousness, than by requiring it to be capable of creating concepts from scratch.
Learning new stuff from external inputs is clearly not enough, because pretty much ALL living organisms can do it in some manner, but they obviously aren't ALL conscious.
So I go for the next best - creating a concept on your own, as opposed to learning it from an external source.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You should watch My Octopus Teacher? It is very much worth watching.

Sorry, I forgot to specify: A sign language that we can ALSO interact with THEM on. So, anything of the sort of "they speak, we reply, and then they reply back again, on topic".
Ya know, to eliminate BASELESS SPECULATION where "you can assume anything, and nobody will have the means to test it anyways", which isn't exactly "scientific" to begin with.
The easiest example being where an animal combines already known separate signs in such a way that we see it trying to invent (and then use) "new words" in a meaningful way.
Whales... kinda don't speak a language that we UNDERSTAND (and thus we could TALK BACK to them), ya know.

Speculation is how science begins. Interspecies communication is pretty complicated (except with dogs) and we are only beginning to get a handle on it. You should watch the linked video above.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sorry, I forgot to specify: A sign language that we can ALSO interact with THEM on. So, anything of the sort of "they speak, we reply, and then they reply back again, on topic".
Ya know, to eliminate BASELESS SPECULATION where "you can assume anything, and nobody will have the means to test it anyways", which isn't exactly "scientific" to begin with.
The easiest example being where an animal combines already known separate signs in such a way that we see it trying to invent (and then use) "new words" in a meaningful way.
Whales... kinda don't speak a language that we UNDERSTAND (and thus we could TALK BACK to them), ya know.

You really should read about Koko the Gorilla (or watch the videos on YT).

As for whales not speaking a language that we understand, that's hardly the whales' fault. We just haven't figured it out yet.

YA KNOW.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's a "me" opinion, but I don't see any better way to single out consciousness, than by requiring it to be capable of creating concepts from scratch.
Learning new stuff from external inputs is clearly not enough, because pretty much ALL living organisms can do it in some manner, but they obviously aren't ALL conscious.
So I go for the next best - creating a concept on your own, as opposed to learning it from an external source.

Humans babies learn most of what the know from external sources. How do you define consciousness exactly? Being clear on definitions is important to having good discussions.

 

[Somebody613]

That's not an opinion, that's the definition. Being conscious doesn't require to invente something.

So why is it discussed so much on this thread, lol?
If it's just a definition, there shouldn't be a question of who/what can or can't use it - you'd just outright list examples (or the lack of any), and that's it.
Making it a discussion, though, implies that there's a zone of gray ambiguity, where it's not defined, but rather opinionated.
Ain't I right?

 

[Somebody613]

Humans babies learn most of what the know from external sources. How do you define consciousness exactly? Being clear on definitions is important to having good discussions.

I definitely plead "guilty" for non-native English, so we MAY be speaking of somewhat different concepts when we say "consciousness".
But to me, it's quite literally the capability of an intellect to produce a concept from scratch - by using imagination, so to speak.
Maybe it's a different word I'm accidentally referring to, I can't know for sure, but this is where "instincts" stop and "true intelligence" arises.
Anything less still falls under "extremely complex instincts capable of reacting to extremely complex external stimuli" - but it isn't "true intelligence" as of yet.
Again, that's just how I see it.

 

[Somebody613]

I think I should clarify the reason behind my opinion by describing how a computer works.
See, you can TEACH a computer not only to recognize faces and texts, but even to come up with "random generators".
But that's where THE difference lies.
Random generators are ALWAYS limited to the pool of words their creators give them (this may be aided by another pool of words provided by the users, but the difference is semantic).
Not a single random generator in the world will use a word it was NEVER TAUGHT by anyone, though.
To make it clear - if you give it a (summed up) pool of letters that excludes the letter "Z", it will NEVER come up with a word that contains a letter "Z".
This is where "programming(or instincts)" get separated from "true intelligence" - because the actual real life letter "Z" was INVENTED by a "conscious" human at some point in history.
A computer is incapable of it - but a human is very much capable of it, and DID it.
The same goes for literally ANY concept out there that isn't a name of a physical object - and that's a huge chunk of our vocabulary.
So, to sum up:
In my opinion, someone/something can be deemed "conscious" only when it can also be proved to be "creative" in a way that ISN'T a random generator.
In my opinion, of course.

 

[EvaDK]

Consciousness is awareness. Awareness of yourself, other beings, your surroundings, your senses, your thoughts. I think, therefore I am.

I don't think an advanced fetus or a newborn has demonstrated a capacity for 'creating concepts' or creativity, yet I reckon no one doubts it is fully conscious.

 

[Somebody613]

Consciousness is awareness. Awareness of yourself, other beings, your surroundings, your senses, your thoughts. I think, therefore I am.

I don't think an advanced fetus or a newborn has demonstrated a capacity for 'creating concepts' or creativity, yet I reckon no one doubts it is fully conscious.

It has the potential and it eventually does it later in its/his/her life. And you can't talk "babish", so how do you know that the baby isn't making fun of your blouse in baby talk already?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think I should clarify the reason behind my opinion by describing how a computer works.
See, you can TEACH a computer not only to recognize faces and texts, but even to come up with "random generators".
But that's where THE difference lies.
Random generators are ALWAYS limited to the pool of words their creators give them (this may be aided by another pool of words provided by the users, but the difference is semantic).
Not a single random generator in the world will use a word it was NEVER TAUGHT by anyone, though.
To make it clear - if you give it a (summed up) pool of letters that excludes the letter "Z", it will NEVER come up with a word that contains a letter "Z".
This is where "programming(or instincts)" get separated from "true intelligence" - because the actual real life letter "Z" was INVENTED by a "conscious" human at some point in history.
A computer is incapable of it - but a human is very much capable of it, and DID it.
The same goes for literally ANY concept out there that isn't a name of a physical object - and that's a huge chunk of our vocabulary.
So, to sum up:
In my opinion, someone/something can be deemed "conscious" only when it can also be proved to be "creative" in a way that ISN'T a random generator.
In my opinion, of course.

Chess computers are taught the rules of the game (they are simple) and they beat humans by inventing new strategies and responses to human players' efforts. No one has input all possible combinations of moves, just the moves possible by each piece. The computer invents new combinations for each game, just like a person.

Now, I agree that computers do not possess consciousness, but the Chess example conflicts with your definition.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It has the potential and it eventually does it later in its/his/her life. And you can't talk "babish", so how do you know that the baby isn't making fun of your blouse in baby talk already?

Having been around babies as they grew up into children, I can assure you that your ^^^ is incorrect.

 

[tjs282]

The easiest example being where an animal combines already known separate signs in such a way that we see it trying to invent (and then use) "new words" in a meaningful way.

Pretty sure Koko did exactly this.

 

[Somebody613]

Chess computers are taught the rules of the game (they are simple) and they beat humans by inventing new strategies and responses to human players' efforts. No one has input all possible combinations of moves, just the moves possible by each piece. The computer invents new combinations for each game, just like a person.

Now, I agree that computers do not possess consciousness, but the Chess example conflicts with your definition.

Not at all.
If I feed a random generator the list of A/B/C/D - it will be able to come up with AB/CD/DACBBDDABCDA, but never with AZ/XT.
The former are made by combining the data it was already given, via an algorithm it was ALSO given - "make a random-length word out of the letters in the list".
I can easily write such an algorithm myself, if anything.
But the latter requires it to actually INVENT a new concept - namely, the letters Z/X/T, which it is absolutely NOT capable of.
Kinda like you teach it CHESS, and then "years later" it suddenly knows how to play CHECKERS (by using the same pieces, just like humans sometimes do in real life) all on its own.
That still never happens in real life, NO?

 

[Somebody613]

Pretty sure Koko did exactly this.

Video proof with a clear scientific explanation, please? Just to be sure it actually happened, ya know.

 

[Hygro]

Not at all.
If I feed a random generator the list of A/B/C/D - it will be able to come up with AB/CD/DACBBDDABCDA, but never with AZ/XT.
The former are made by combining the data it was already given, via an algorithm it was ALSO given - "make a random-length word out of the letters in the list".
I can easily write such an algorithm myself, if anything.
But the latter requires it to actually INVENT a new concept - namely, the letters Z/X/T, which it is absolutely NOT capable of.
Kinda like you teach it CHESS, and then "years later" it suddenly knows how to play CHECKERS (by using the same pieces, just like humans sometimes do in real life) all on its own.
That still never happens in real life, NO?

We’ve had nearly the same alphabet our whole written existence. I’ve never invented a new letter. Have you?

 

[Somebody613]

We’ve had nearly the same alphabet our whole written existence. I’ve never invented a new letter. Have you?

Some HUMANS did, though. And letters are but a very small subset of another rather small subset of what "imagination" is capable of.
You are literally grasping at straws here, because my point is that "consciousness" EXPRESSES itself via imagination - not that absolutely every human on Earth MUST invent something.
We CAN, we are ABLE to - so we ALL share the level of intelligence that I would call "consciousness".
And which I also still having been provided any proof that can be correctly observed in animals OR computers.
When someone shows me a sufficient example - I can re-evaluate it once again.
So far I've been given NONE, though.

 

[Akka]

So why is it discussed so much on this thread, lol?

Because people come up with absurd definitions and cling to them rather than just checking if they are valid first ?

If it's just a definition, there shouldn't be a question of who/what can or can't use it - you'd just outright list examples (or the lack of any), and that's it.

Definition isn't a list of examples, it's the description of a concept.

Making it a discussion, though, implies that there's a zone of gray ambiguity, where it's not defined, but rather opinionated.
Ain't I right?

You're right. Where you're wrong is when you just make up an ad hoc definition and pretend it's the right one.