Will we ever be able to explain consciousness and can we duplicate it artifically?

[atreas]

There's no reason to assert that conciousness has any special immaterial property

Did I do such a thing? Did I do the opposite thing? Why do you have the bad habbit of cutting phrases in the middle?

What experiments are you talking about?

In the domain of learning and children psychology they studied the behaviour of identical twins that are either separated or living together, and found differences that can't be explained. These studies seem to support the fact that each one has also some unique characteristics, not explicable through genes alone. Still, since NO TWO ENVIROMENTS ARE EVER THE SAME, it is very difficult to go on with an argument about an immaterial substance; at the same time, these same studies aren't the best support you can get for the materialism theory.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think we will first need to be able to detect consciousness.

At this stage in the discussion it might be good to define consciousness. Things will murky in a hurry if you don't. Are you only talking human consciousness?
Which of these have "consciousness"?
mammals
birds
fish
insects
plants
bacteria
rocks & minerals
proteins
molecules
atoms
quarks & leptons

Is "consciuosness" self awareness sufficient to respond to things around you?

 

[punkbass2000]

Personally, I don't consider consciousness to be an individual property, so to ask which things have consciousness isn't meaningful to me. (drum roll please)











Consciousness is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Personally, I don't consider consciousness to be an individual property, so to ask which things have consciousness isn't meaningful to me. (drum roll please)

Consciousness is.

Point taken. The questions I raised, while directed to you are open to all to answer. So for you Mr. PB a special question: If consciousness just "is", is it everywhere and is it the same everywhere it is?

And for bonus points: Why do we perceive that there are differences in consciousness if there really aren't any?

 

[punkbass2000]

Consciousness is zero-dimensional, IMO. For the purposes of four-dimensional beings like ourselves, that makes it everywhere always. I'm not aware of the differences in consciousness that we supposedly perceive that you're referring to.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Consciousness is zero-dimensional, IMO. For the purposes of four-dimensional beings like ourselves, that makes it everywhere always. I'm not aware of the differences in consciousness that we supposedly perceive that you're referring to.

Many folks would say that chimps and dogs have a different or lesser consciousness level than humans.

Or to put it another way, if consciousness is ubiquitous as you say, why don't dogs think like people? Why don't I see things like the Dali Lama?

 

[atreas]

Consciousness is zero-dimensional, IMO. For the purposes of four-dimensional beings like ourselves, that makes it everywhere always. I'm not aware of the differences in consciousness that we supposedly perceive that you're referring to.

Aren't you feeling that this is just a play with words? I have no problem with esoteric philosophy if you want to discuss it in that frame, but isn't this stance just a way of telling people that don't follow your approach "you haven't the right to use that word"?

If you don't like the word consciousness, you can pick up another word - like personality, behaviour, etc. - and try to elaborate a bit. I would really like to hear how you proceed from an immaterial global base (that's the meaning of zero dimentions) to the obvious difference we see in the world.

 

[Perfection]

Did I do such a thing? Did I do the opposite thing? Why do you have the bad habbit of cutting phrases in the middle?

You're missing my point. The point is if there's no reason to believe it's immaterial, but there is plenty of reasons that it is material (I throw a brick at you, you lose conciousness and other physical impacts on psyhcology). So believe it's material and be done with it!

In the domain of learning and children psychology they studied the behaviour of identical twins that are either separated or living together, and found differences that can't be explained. These studies seem to support the fact that each one has also some unique characteristics, not explicable through genes alone. Still, since NO TWO ENVIROMENTS ARE EVER THE SAME, it is very difficult to go on with an argument about an immaterial substance; at the same time, these same studies aren't the best support you can get for the materialism theory.

Just because it's not explained by genes alone, doesn't make them unexplained! Environmental differences are more than enough to make the explination. I really don't see any bearing onto the conversation.

 

[punkbass2000]

Many folks would say that chimps and dogs have a different or lesser consciousness level than humans.

Or to put it another way, if consciousness is ubiquitous as you say, why don't dogs think like people? Why don't I see things like the Dali Lama?

I don't equate consciousness with thought. I don't see what others see because we have different eyes. I don't think what they think because we have different brains.

 

[punkbass2000]

Aren't you feeling that this is just a play with words? I have no problem with esoteric philosophy if you want to discuss it in that frame, but isn't this stance just a way of telling people that don't follow your approach "you haven't the right to use that word"?

I don't really understand your point.

If you don't like the word consciousness, you can pick up another word - like personality, behaviour, etc. - and try to elaborate a bit.

I like the word "consciousness" as much as any other, and slightly more than a few other words. If you want to discuss personality or behaviour, I think that would be another thread.

I would really like to hear how you proceed from an immaterial global base (that's the meaning of zero dimentions) to the obvious difference we see in the world.

The differences are simply perceptual. Why is sight like sight and smell like smell? This I do not know. I tend to think that the way connect the senses together is likely a trick of the brain, but I may be wrong.

 

[punkbass2000]

That was amazingly insightful - thanks. Really.

Glad you enjoyed it, BTW.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The brain is so complex that I doubt it will ever be possible to duplicate a specific person's consciousness. There are far too many neurons, axons, synapses etc. Of course if these are all organized by some relatively simple "floor plan" of the brain, then it might be possible, but so far that seems unlikely.

 

[El_Machinae]

If our instruments can be smaller than dendrites, then we'll easily be able to map a brain.

And our instruments get small and smaller all the time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't equate consciousness with thought. I don't see what others see because we have different eyes. I don't think what they think because we have different brains.

Ah... consciousness is filtered by physical things. So access to a uniform, ubiquitous consciousness could be restricted by our brains, eyes, bodies etc. and "how much" consciousness is allowed through to be processed and preceived "controlled" or limited by our bodies.

 

[El_Machinae]

We could get 'more' consciousness by upgrading our bodies?

 

[Birdjaguar]

We could get 'more' consciousness by upgrading our bodies?

Depending upon what you mean by "upgrade", it would seem that awareness of PB's zero dimensional consciousness would be improved if our body's barriers to it were lessened.

 

[Neomega]

I think consciousness is a combination of survival instinct, biological desires, and the realization your time is limited. That and I think having the brain divided in two makes one part of your mind aware of the other, and therefore, you have self awareness.

 

[El_Machinae]

You think that people that have had their brain split (epilepsy surgery) are no longer self-aware?

I remember reading about that theory ... where before, we weren't self-aware, we just acted like we were.

 

[Neomega]

You think that people that have had their brain split (epilepsy surgery) are no longer self-aware?

I remember reading about that theory ... where before, we weren't self-aware, we just acted like we were.

brain split? I am not aware of that, but I said two halves make one half aware of the other. Now, if one half were removed, yeah... labotomy patients aren;t the most sentinent of people

It's just a half baked theory anyway.

 

[kingjoshi]

I guess eventually we could copy someone's consciousness. I don't know when.

I do think we will create a robot with consciousness within 50 years.

As I was writing, I was considering creating a miniature robots that are programmed similar to our genes and allow them to mimic cellular activity. But I realized problems with that.

I had a professor working on self-autonomous robots at MSU. I really liked his project but some differing ideas with him. He wasn't receptive to criticism or new tracks based upon his approach. I had many conversations with friends about it. But I still think something similar to his approach is the best avenue.

Here are some links on it. There are videos of the robot learning and performing 'mental development'.

There are various forms of 'learning' in regards to machines. Some 'learning' is defined to a narrow field. But this technique has a lot of potential, especially since is merges both the physical world and the 'information' realm. I think this type of system can be more advanced to eventually have conscious robots.