A theory of consciousness

@boagie,

Nameless, I beg to give Boagie a break. Thats his style ... contructive critisism.

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron;29680 wrote:

Nameless, I beg to give Boagie a break. Thats his style ... contructive critisism.

I saw nothing constructive. I saw someone with some sort of 'agenda/grudge'. If you can show me where I have been disrespectful or rude or personally offensive, I will offer apology. If there are any 'real' grounds for his 'not liking my tone', besides ruffled ego, let me know. My intent is not to offend, but I will speak honestly to what is posted. I will call a spade a spade. I don't have the time to dissemble in preference to ruffled feelings. 'Truth' is more important to me, and always 'ruffles feelings'! If someone does not want honest input, don't post.
Discuss the ideas and leave personality out of it.
"Great minds discuss ideas, inferior minds personalities." - Someone
'Nuff said on the matter.
nameless out.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie;29615 wrote:

Nameless,..blah, blah...
And yes, do ignore me, and I shall ignore you, if you can do that, I thank you.

Done. And if I should respond to something that you say, that I feel needs response, I will do so for the edification of anyone that is reading the posts. You needn't respond, especially if you have nothing productive to add other than to whine about 'tones'.
Pffft!

1 Reply

@nameless,

I must admit to agreeing with nameless with the action reaction here. I see no reason not to say action for the context of reaction, because the additional context is kinda implied in common sense.

I have gotten the impression of philosophy that arguments and debates are important, so can we just stick to debating the views of the website Hermes has provided, without permitting a stupid grudge.

Anyways, one thing I am still confused at is how does consciousness in this theory imply the existence of the being, because the diagram is clearly cyclic. If these set of conditions, motor, now that was, now, etc. are to put in place this consciousness, then the consciousness must also have an effect on the conditions. This then becomes an irrationality. So I just need clarification on this.

I also, have a theory on how we might be able to derive the system in general, using the idea that there is nothing quite like consciousness that we can conceive, at least, I'm pretty sure that consciousness is consciousness and there are not two kinds of consciousness as defined. So it should have it's own system to manifest it. And there would only be one system. (Also, what I mean by systems are the lines and arrows and 'this' pointing to 'that'; ex. Present leading to anticipation).

I think the simplest rule in the system of consciousness is that the system cannot be circular and consciousness be part of the circle, because then that implies causality plays back upon itself. (how'd we even get to causality anyways?!) Consciousness can imply circular conditions like the revised diagram shows, IMO, except where is the resultant of consciousness in here. Have I missed something here, are we still on about consciousness?:puzzled: :popcorn:...

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;29707 wrote:

Anyways, one thing I am still confused at is how does consciousness in this theory imply the existence of the being, because the diagram is clearly cyclic. If these set of conditions, motor, now that was, now, etc. are to put in place this consciousness, then the consciousness must also have an effect on the conditions. This then becomes an irrationality. So I just need clarification on this. ....

OK I have tried to see this from your point of view and I think I understand what you are getting at! ... But, I don't think there is any "irrationality". I haven't stood back from the model so much before, so thanks for bringing this up, I hope I can answer your question...

The diagram shown is just a cycle of information; there being one main entry point for information, from the senses. Now the diagram, if you take it at face value, does not show or describe "consciousness", this is an emergent property of the system that I try to explain elsewhere. What the cycle does do, its primary function, is to create and define the Being of Entities.

This is the ontological function of Dasein, it is how our minds create the notion of all Being: We can use and comprehend the verb "to be" because of the interrelations, established by this cycle, of all the Entities within it. The Entities have certain properties that are important to their Being, which I define as monism (an Entity being a thing), materialism (an Entity being defined by its relationship to other Entities) and mutation (an Entity has temporality, this is created by the Anticipation that makes the Potentiality-for-Being for each Entity).

So... when "consciousness" does arise, when it emerges, the "World" that has been built from foundation by these Entities serves to define the Being of Dasein, the Being of self (amongst other phenomena that are part of the experience of "consciousness").

Now, you said that the consciousness would effect the system itself - I agree with this and this is part of the host of emergent properties the system exhibits. Heidegger says...

Quote:

"We have now pointed out how those modes of Being-in-the-world which are constitutive for knowing the world are interconnected in their foundations; this makes it plain that in knowing, Dasein achieves a new status of Being towards a world that has already been discovered in Dasein itself. This new possibility of Being can develop itself autonomously; it can become a task to be accomplished, and as scientific knowledge it can take over the guidance for Being-in-the-world."

Being and Time, H62
(my highlight)

So rather than being a problem, this allows Dasein, when it has the Entity of self within its system, to Anticipate itself and so "take over"/take control of itself in a meaningful way. The Potentiality-for-Being of the self is a vital part in the emergence of consciousness, leading to the origin of goal orientated action, and this could only arise in such a reflexive cycle. This is how Dasein, our mind, becomes able to purposefully control itself; this is "will".

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Ok so if it is emergent then how so is it? Is it instantaneous or does it gradient?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;29711 wrote:

Ok so if it is emergent then how so is it? Is it instantaneous or does it gradient?

It's a gradual process. It would depend on a number of factors, such as the speed of the function of Dasein, the world in which it exists, the other instances of Dasein around it (which are vital in reflecting the image of self back into the original Dasein) ... in humans this process takes several years from birth.

This gradual emergence is evident in the behaviour of humans. As I describe (though perhaps not very well) on the site, babies show uncoordinated and meaningless movements; there are in the initial stage where Dasein is building up the interrelations between its Entities, it has no conception of self, so cannot direct itself to do anything.

Young children begin to form a basic Entity of the self, and have accordingly developed a basic model of the world through the interrelations of their Entities; they are in a pre-sentient stage and can, like many mammals, direct themselves to achieve a Potentiality-for-Being of the self that they desire to fulfil (ie. in simple terms, "they can do what they want to").

Around 10 years old, give or take, humans become self-aware. At this point, the Entity of the self has not changed in any significant way, and shall perhaps only change in a minor fashion for the rest of the instance's life, but the function of Dasein itself, through Derivative Interpretations, has started to see itself in a different way.

---------------

So, because it is a cycle, and because it is not infinitely quick and infallible (in humans), it is going to take time. If enacted within a suitable machine I expect sentience, the emergence of consciousness, could occur much quicker (of course dependent upon its physical parameters).

0 Replies

@Hermes,

Let start with the basics.

[ATTACH]35[/ATTACH]

Is this correct and clear so far?
Advice required to expand idea.

Note in the diagram, awareness has no output and is a combination of the whole.

Memory is loop created by the sense of feeling/touch.

If we took a snap shot of our environment it would not make sense. No stories could be told. If we keep taking snap shots continuous we could make sense. We'll have a story to tell. Therefore, consciousness is a function of time. Time is a function of events.

All matter is conscious. An element of matter alone does not possses memory. Memory is produced by a combination of elements which form loops.

Emotions are behaviors observed through consciousness, and emotional feeling is consciousness itself.

You agree?

0 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Here is a story about three friends of MIND, of my MIND that is, called CONSCIOUSNESS, WILL and PREDITABILITY.

CONSCIOUSNESS analyses Environment. CONSCIOUSNESS communicated his experience to WILL. WILL being unpredictable confronts PREDICTABILITY. PREDITABILITY encourages WILL to make a Decision. WILL makes a Decision.

Decision changes the Environment. CONSCIOUSNESS analyses the Environment, and communicated his experience to WILL. WILL being unpredictable confronts PREDICTABLITY. PREDITABILITY encourages will to make another Decision. WILL refuses. So PREDICTABILITY agreed to make the next Decision.

Decision changes the Environment. What do you thing happened next?

Beats me. The outcome is unpredictable. :perplexed:

2 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

we all go to bed and become unconscious...

2 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron,

It's good to see someone else's thoughts on the Question up here! I must confess I am probably not the best person to offer feedback since I have an inherent bias for my own work and ideas Wink

What I can say is you might want to link that picture to a larger version, I don't think people can read it as it is. Also, I might suggest tightening up your language use. "Consciousness", for example, has no accepted logical or even common definition, so would be best to avoid in any rigorous argument you want to put forward (perhaps that should be the goal of you theory?). I would approach the argument like a building; start with small blocks and build up your definitions of important words (you use Mind, Will, Predictability etc) and go from there.

Keep at it :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;29798 wrote:

we all go to bed and become unconscious...

.......... :eek: ....... you know I didn't even think about trying to explain that in my model yet.... what a dolt I am :brickwall:

Thanks! Smile

(though some ideas do spring to mind, shouldn't be too much of a problem! I hope....)

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

we all go to bed and become unconscious...

There is less stimula to the brain. You are not unconscious. You are less conscious. We are conscious of nothing so to speak. Consciousness has levels. This level is kind of negative. The Neutral level is the dream state.

1 Reply

@Hermes,

Hermes wrote:

Sir Neuron,

Also, I might suggest tightening up your language use.
Keep at it :bigsmile:

I will take your advice. I will try to.

What is your definition of consciousness?

0 Replies

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron wrote:

There is less stimula to the brain. You are not unconscious. You are less conscious. We are conscious of nothing so to speak. Consciousness has levels. This level is kind of negative. The Neutral level is the dream state.

but the chain of events breaks down we are on hold..possibly evaluating..observing our actions..we act we regret we evaluate we learn and dreaming is part of that process but it is not consciousness as we are discussing..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

but the chain of events breaks down we are on hold..possibly evaluating..observing our actions..we act we regret we evaluate we learn and dreaming is part of that process but it is not consciousness as we are discussing..

Well! I looks like I've got this whole idea of consciousness incorrect, according to your views, or may we have different expressions to the same thing in mind.

Care to ellaborate some more?

I agree dreaming is a process, but I was refering to the effect that process has on the state of consciousness.

1 Reply

@Sir Neuron,

Im no philosopher nor do I claim to understand the workings of our waking hours but if you exclude the dream time from your equation you are missing the most important section of our understanding of our conscious mind...We do not have time in our waking hours to formulate opinions and long term decisions, we purposely avoid the important actions..till we have slept on them...how many times do we regret those actions we should have considered? Is our dream time more conscious of its actions than we realise? We even forgive others instant opinions more than we do long held beliefs or decisions...Im rambling...

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;29892 wrote:

Im no philosopher nor do I claim to understand the workings of our waking hours but if you exclude the dream time from your equation you are missing the most important section of our understanding of our conscious mind...

Afraid I would disagree here slightly. If one is trying to explain human consciousness then certainly it is an important part of the picture, but I don't think that sleeping can be argued to be anything other than an evolutionary response to energy constraints on the brain; it would be far better for an organism to never have to sleep, but the brain consumes far too much energy to be kept functioning at full capacity so it works on cycles. (This is similar to plants or animals that hibernate or go dormant - inactivity or reduced activity is a natural response to a scarcity of resources)

So for the purpose of designing machine intelligence, sleeping & dreaming are really nothing more than a sideshow. They do not contribute to or determine our fundamental conscious processes in any direct way (they may be representative of our fundamental processes, but there is little chance of sleeping processes having any significant evolutionary impact)...

Quote:

We do not have time in our waking hours to formulate opinions and long term decisions, we purposely avoid the important actions..till we have slept on them...how many times do we regret those actions we should have considered? Is our dream time more conscious of its actions than we realise? We even forgive others instant opinions more than we do long held beliefs or decisions...Im rambling...

Hehe don't worry about the rambling, I'm guilty too :surrender:
I believe that the processes you mention here, whilst important for the human model of consciousness, are not a logical necessity but rather a consequence of the need for a rest, sleep, itself. This follows on to this...

Sir Neuron;29811 wrote:

There is less stimula to the brain. You are not unconscious. You are less conscious. We are conscious of nothing so to speak. Consciousness has levels. This level is kind of negative. The Neutral level is the dream state.

I agree with this SN, except for the last part (neutral level being a dream statae). I read somewhere that the action of general anaesthetics is believed to act on the .. ummm... intralamina nucleus of the thalamus IIRC (yes, centromedian nucleus of this region). Now this is not a large part of the brain, not cortical, and most certainly does little in itself to "create" consciousness, but is perhaps permissive for consciousness in that it is part of collating and coordinating signals from the cortex. Thus, chemicals that target this region can cause general anaesthesia.

This is most likely what occurs in sleep; the cortex is still chugging away in a lower gear but the sensation of consciousness has been shut down by the thalamus.

0 Replies

@Hermes,

It is said, "Matter can not be created or destroyed; it just changes from one state to another." At least, that is apparent in our apparent realty. Providing that this is in deed the case and consciousness exist in all matter to some degree, then it is no need to design consciousness into an artifical sentient, because the artifical sentient would already posses consciousness.

Providing that our senses are responsible for our actions, and consciousness is not , that raises the question; Can one tell if another posseses consciousness?

1 Reply

@Sir Neuron,

This is something of an update... I have, since I started this thread, reworked and completed a lot of what I had originally intended to do. The site covers my philosophical model for consciousness, includes a large section on how this model is directly reflected in the functional neuroanatomy of the brain, and a definition of the phenomenal perception of consciousness (though one really needs to have read everything that comes before to understand it thoroughly).

Again, I would be very appreciative of any criticism provided it is related to what I said and arguments are kept relevant.

The main page is here: linky

And here are the pages that correspond the theory to the brain, though please bear in mind these pages shall be unclear without prior knowledge of the philosophy:
Senses
Action
Language
Memory

Please, enjoy and many thanks if you take the time to try and understand what I am gibbering on about :a-ok:

Sir Neuron;30712 wrote:

It is said, "Matter can not be created or destroyed; it just changes from one state to another." At least, that is apparent in our apparent realty. Providing that this is in deed the case and consciousness exist in all matter to some degree,

Sorry SN, I don't follow this step! I don't believe that consciousness exists in "all matter" and I don't know of any science or logic that claims so either. It is generally accepted to arise from the function of complex systems, not "inert" objects.

Quote:

Providing that our senses are responsible for our actions, and consciousness is not , that raises the question; Can one tell if another posseses consciousness?

The only way to objectively tell if another being is conscious is to...

a) Know what processes are required for consciousness.
b) Interrogate their "brain" (organic or synthetic) and see if those processes are present.

Since we do not yet know (a) and cannot perform (b) without killing the subject (non-invasive imaging is not yet up to resolution on a cellular level - thus dissection is required), there is no way to objectively know - yet. But Turing proposed a very practical solution many years ago and it is called the Turing test: In a blind conversation, if a human cannot tell whether it is talking to a man or a machine when it is in fact talking to a machine, then the machine is sentient. In practicality this is as good as any subjective test can get (and is what humans do all the time anyway when judging each other's sentience).

1 Reply

A theory of consciousness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know