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

[Somebody613]

Do you even read your own posts? You've been moving goalposts ever since you joined this thread.

Your condescending attitude is NOT required.

You don't need to keep trying to explain it. I got you the first time. I just don't happen to agree with you.

I somehow tend to think that "you are moving goalposts" is pretty much the most popular excuse for "I have nothing to counter you with" these days and years.
But let's agree to disagree, kay?

 

[bernie14]

 

[Somebody613]

Definitely very cool. Still has nothing to do with abstract non-physical conceptualization, though.

 

[bernie14]

Shows some pretty good situational awareness though....in any case, the current argument is simply semantics...

 

[Somebody613]

Shows some pretty good situational awareness though....in any case, the current argument is simply semantics...

Not at all.
I never claimed that animals are incapable of operating with extremely complex physical concepts - and this video clearly shows that they CAN do it.
My entire focus is on my point that they are rather incapable of creating or understanding non-physical concepts (such as, say, beauty - as a concept itself, not as a mental reaction).

 

[bernie14]

Not at all.
I never claimed that animals are incapable of operating with extremely complex physical concepts - and this video clearly shows that they CAN do it.
My entire focus is on my point that they are rather incapable of creating or understanding non-physical concepts (such as, say, beauty - as a concept itself, not as a mental reaction).

Yeah, your argument is using that as the definition of consciousness and the argument of others is they don't like your definition

 

[Somebody613]

Yeah, your argument is using that as the definition of consciousness and the argument of others is they don't like your definition

While I explicitly said that I may be using the wrong word for what I'm referring to - it's probably closer to sapience or even sentience, not consciousness.
But I honestly can't see where the practical difference between all of those words lies, so it's a bit circular.

 

[bernie14]

While I explicitly said that I may be using the wrong word for what I'm referring to - it's probably closer to sapience or even sentience, not consciousness.
But I honestly can't see where the practical difference between all of those words lies, so it's a bit circular.

The limitations of language.

 

[Somebody613]

The limitations of language.

FOREIGN language at that, too. My base one is actually Russian, lol, and I often feel how it backfires. This is MOST PROBABLY just another such case.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I explicitly said several times already that I *may* be talking about a different concept simply because of the language differences.
My subject is about "what makes a human different from a dog on the intellectual level" - and this is precisely what I keep talking about all the time here.
Whether this is "consciousness" or something else, well, maybe it would've been clearer to me, if it was in Russian (my primary language), dunno.

I guess I'm the one who needs to explain that "abstract" explicitly means "not a physical entity", lol.
Abstract means something that we "can't see or touch, but we still know it's there" - basically, it's "extra-physical existence" of sorts (don't confuse it with "supernatural", it's a different idea).
So, no - tools aren't abstract, even maps aren't abstract, and any language has a ton of words for non-abstract physical objects.
None of which is the threshold of "true sapience" that we CAN observe in humans and CAN'T observe in any other entity, biological or not.
This is literally how a SCIENTIST should approach the topic, so it's quite funny to see how some of you get defensive about "why are you making it so hard to include non-humans".
Well, because SCIENTIFICALLY we simply had never OBSERVED a single non-human being capable of "true human sapience (or sentience, whichever is MORE complex)", ya know.
It's just how it IS, lol.

What is pretty clear at this point is that you want to draw a hard line between humans and all other life forms. Of course, dogs and cats don't do things humans do. They are not human. You have concocted testing to reinforce that thinking: "See Koko did not write a play, so she can't have human consciousness." You avoid actually talking about consciousness and go on about abstract thought instead. And when presented with examples of abstract thought in animals you just dismiss it. Crows making tools and orcas making a plan and working together to sink boats certainly involves abstract thought. But since they cannot build nuclear bombs, they cannot be true abstract thinkers.

"Tools are not abstract, but they are a product of abstract thought." quoted from above. Abstract thought does manifest itself into objects demonstrating the existence of the abstract idea.


Here is a simplified list of human evolutionary steps. The advances were slow and took millions of years. In your thinking, at which point did humans separate themselves from animals to become preeminent abstract thinkers?

• Australopithecus africanus
• Homo habilis
• Homo erectus (existed for 1 million years or more)
• Flores man
• Neanderthal (existed for about 400,000 years)
• Denisovans
• Homo sapiens (has existed for about 150,000 years)

Consciousness/self awareness is not intellect. It is an abstract property we associate with humans (and other living things). You have worked hard to maintain the superior human-animal barrier and I don't think anyone here would dispute that humans have capabilities that other critters don't. That though is not the question.

 

[EvaDK]

Not at all.
I never claimed that animals are incapable of operating with extremely complex physical concepts - and this video clearly shows that they CAN do it.
My entire focus is on my point that they are rather incapable of creating or understanding non-physical concepts (such as, say, beauty - as a concept itself, not as a mental reaction).

1. You are aware that you are the only poster in this thread, arguing that operating with 'non-physical concepts' is - somehow - a requirement for consciousness? No one here are required to accept that premise, because it's, like, your opinion; it's not a fact.

2. How do you know, that animals are 'rather incapable of creating or understanding non-physical concepts' ? Not that it really matters (see 1. above), but I'm curious; how can you claim to know this? What's your evidence?

 

[bernie14]

FOREIGN language at that, too. My base one is actually Russian, lol, and I often feel how it backfires. This is MOST PROBABLY just another such case.

I don't know if "scientifically" you have defined what you are describing, but philosophically, smells like some sort of hegelian idealism. Unfortunately, "the really smart people" seem to have decided that "ideas" are metaphysical, so you believe in ghosts

 

[Somebody613]

I see that certain materialists won't ever admit that "beauty" is NOT a physical concept (albeit it is applied TO physical objects, but the concept itself isn't one).
Well, whatever.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I see that certain materialists won't ever admit that "beauty" is NOT a physical concept (albeit it is applied TO physical objects, but the concept itself isn't one).
Well, whatever.

No one here will say that beauty is not an abstract concept as well as a physical one. That is not the point though. You keep changing the discussion.

 

[Somebody613]

No one here will say that beauty is not an abstract concept as well as a physical one. That is not the point though. You keep changing the discussion.

No, I keep trying new explanations. My subject of discussion never changed: We can't observe "human"-type sentience in non-humans. I'm merely explaining WHAT it means in practice.

 

[Akka]

I see that certain materialists won't ever admit that "beauty" is NOT a physical concept (albeit it is applied TO physical objects, but the concept itself isn't one).
Well, whatever.

Aren't you the guy saying that "directions" and "language" are "physical concept" ?
(in fact what does "physical concept" even means, it's nonsensical to begin with)

No, I keep trying new explanations. My subject of discussion never changed: We can't observe "human"-type sentience in non-humans. I'm merely explaining WHAT it means in practice.

And people keep trying to tell you that your explanations are absurd.
Mate, at some point, when everyone is telling you the same thing, you should maybe consider that maybe, you're the one who is wrong and not everybody else.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, I keep trying new explanations. My subject of discussion never changed: We can't observe "human"-type sentience in non-humans. I'm merely explaining WHAT it means in practice.

So we are talking about sentience and not consciousness? Of course being human is different from being non human. No one is claiming that humans and non humans are the same. That does not exclude that non humans from having consciousness/awareness. Please answer my question below that I posted earlier. Thanks.

Here is a simplified list of human evolutionary steps. The advances were slow and took millions of years. In your thinking, at which point did humans separate themselves from animals to become preeminent abstract thinkers?

• Australopithecus africanus
• Homo habilis
• Homo erectus (existed for 1 million years or more)
• Flores man
• Neanderthal (existed for about 400,000 years)
• Denisovans
• Homo sapiens (has existed for about 150,000 years)

 

[Snowygerry]

Good post there, it is nice to see our history summarized like that

The first abstract thoughts would have likely been unknown, it requires advanced language skills to express them.

So what we're looking for is the first evidence of an abstract idea ?

 

[Samson]

So what we're looking for is the first evidence of an abstract idea ?

I would say we want the most "simple" animal that shows evidence for an abstract idea. If rats playing computer games with their brains and ChatGPT "hallucinating" is not abstract enough I do not know what what sort of evidence we are going to get though.

 

[Somebody613]

So we are talking about sentience and not consciousness? Of course being human is different from being non human. No one is claiming that humans and non humans are the same. That does not exclude that non humans from having consciousness/awareness. Please answer my question below that I posted earlier. Thanks.

Here is a simplified list of human evolutionary steps. The advances were slow and took millions of years. In your thinking, at which point did humans separate themselves from animals to become preeminent abstract thinkers?

• Australopithecus africanus
• Homo habilis
• Homo erectus (existed for 1 million years or more)
• Flores man
• Neanderthal (existed for about 400,000 years)
• Denisovans
• Homo sapiens (has existed for about 150,000 years)

Let me talk to each of them, then I'll be able to find it out.
That's a serious answer - I can only determine this via direct interaction (not necessarily me personally, but definitely via an "ask-reply" routine).
That IS my point: We can only determine this by studying INTERACTIONS, and for that we'd need a COMMON LANGUAGE TOOL.
Hence what I said about whales, for examples.

And, ONCE AGAIN, I not only admit that it's a language problem for me to separate consciousness/sentience, I explicitly try to DEFINE each of them, so that I can use them correctly.
Fun fact: Some posters AGREE that "it's a rather hard task to define the lines between them" - which is what I'm trying to do with all these examples and tests.
It's only partially a "me" problem, if OTHER people also agree that it's a source of definitional confusion.