Consciousness, A Discussion

There are legitimate questions for which a broad spectrum of sciences could help answer. For example, questions such as why and how humans evolved to have the degree of intelligence they have now, how humans can have so much intelligence considering what they're working with, or questions that delve into the details of mental processes.

Illegitimate questions, because they have no answer, have been asked and implied at many times in this thread. Such questions are often about the substantiality of consciousness, or when we are or aren't conscious, or to what degree, rather than simply delving into what degrees of stimuli from the outer environment and how active a person is at any given time.

While those questions have no answer, the root of our need to ask them is another legitimate question. Whether the details I gave earlier in this thread are accurate or not, the answer most likely relates to a loose connection between various mental processes, which creates the perception of something lacking a degree of substantiality taking place.

 

Consciousness being a gradiated phenomena in the development of cerebral networks of species emerging and developing more complexity from bugs, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals and humans seems far from a "fluke" to me. In fact, in theory It seems to fall right in line with the gradual processes of evolutionary adaptation, which evolutionary theory relies so heavily on. Awareness in regards to surroundings and self elicited by consciousness including potential danger, food, shelter, health, protection, child rearing, social organization, seem plainly obvious to me. I think Dennett's arguments about consciousness being illusion are two-fold and you are falling directly into one of the traps in thinking about consciousness, that he suggests not to. One is that we are not as conscious as much as that we think we are, the other which you seem to be ascribing to is that consciousness somehow has this magical quality to it beyond all ability to comprehend with much of our framework. Well I am providing a framework, you don't have to agree with me but I think it is quite consistent, with explaining why consciousness develops the way it does.

I agree that the idea that lifeless matter needing protection is absurd but that proposition speaks more to your arguments, since I do not think rocks or your shit are conscious. I'm taking it the point of contention you are making is that at some level matter is essentially the same material stuff, whether it is dead or living. So how does matter, by undergoing biopoiesis (or by whatever other process) become animate and living and develop needs for survival and so on and so forth. I don't really have an answer for that, that probably relies more on a discussion of life's origins and may not even necessarily have much or anything at all to do with consciousness per se.

 

This is apparently a feature that is either unique or extremely ramped up in the human consciousness.

 

As you please , you may extend your conciousness into any part and all the universe . But how practical is that ?
It seldom produces the realization of fact since to possess and then share a fact needs a context of broader under-
standing . Should be able to make art of it .... such as to paint with cosmic plasma , surf the concious wave .

One could think to extend into a crystal just to see the passing of neutrinos - that then the crystal is a form with
conciousness . Ya , yours . For that matter -extend and recognize any form you might think is important . Your
philosophy will indicate what is important .

Deep Ecology can be considered a philosophy that has been constructed to hold a very designated value ,
specifically , the goodness of environmental action . The philosophy bonds a theory of conciousness to a
action necessary to wholistic survival . Science is important to it as a diciplined servant , and the servant will
be reminded of who is telling who how to think of stuff . Philosophy shall direct the focus of science , and the
poser Philosophy of Science is much too shallow to take seriously .

But then ... the Deep Ecology can easily be swallowed by a larger fish . If there ever be a Philosophy of Feeling -
(Emotionalism as an -ism of heart) - as well developed as Realism or Existentialism , oh , that would be one more
killer whale of a philosophy centered on a universal , essential idea with which to describe operative conciousness .

A Philosophy of Space , just so , would suit the life of Dragonfly . PhiScience is for the injured and lost though not
quite yet loveless , huh ?

 

Because evolution isn't necessarily limited to survival of the fittest. Evolution, not yet realized by all of Science, is for the evolution of Consciousness. If a piece of feces does in fact contain Consciousness, it can't really reflect on it. The same goes with animals, at least in my opinion. It may be able to see that it is separate from something else, but it's not necessarily able to contemplate this like a human has the potential to.

Self-Realization is what is referred to as "Enlightenment", and is the result of the evolution of Consciousness through a human being. Kundalini is the one that drives this process on an energetic physiological level.

I think that the reason for Consciousness is nothing short of Man coming to realize that he himself is one with the Cosmos and can utilize its raw power and potential. Religion is bashed so heavily these days because it is severing the potentials for that realization, while Science isn't Spiritual enough to realize that Enlightenment and Spiritual Awakening are actually a process of Evolution.

We are evolving from mere survival of the fittest to Co-creation and Co-dependency, the more that we realize that we are all cells on the Organism called the Earth. Once we get to this point, and only then, will we be ready to then start opening up to more Galactic and Cosmic intelligence and really get what's going on elsewhere in the Galactic Community.

The Evolution of Consciousness is also aiding into the collective realization of the Noosphere, or "Mental Sheath", and the internet you could call a sort of prototype Noosphere. Psychic collective awareness will keep bubbling up more and more.

 

There's not really such thing as a rock or a tree, per se. Those objects need the labeling and contemplation of a human being to be able to be identified as such. And since animals have Consciousness, I don't see why the rest of matter wouldn't also have some sort of source consciousness infused into it. But the human being's interaction with a tree, for example, almost allows the tree to be aware of itself through the eyes of a human. A tree is really not this "thing"...there's nowhere to draw the line between the sky, wind, leaves, branches, trunk, roots, and dirt, as all are essential to the existence of the tree. You could just as easily call the tree "Earth" if you looked at it more broadly.

Animals are just one with the Earth that surrounds them, but not consciously. Humans have been destroying all that surrounds them out of the unconscious (but they still contain consciousness) evolutionary result of the Ego, and this period of time has run its course. We are now in the position to rise above our illusory sense of separation from Nature to be able to be one with the Earth on a CONSCIOUS LEVEL. The implications of this happening we will just have to wait and see in the course of evolution, but a lot will radically shift in the course of our lifetime.

 

You think so? The cultural differences of say celebrating death as opposed to mourning death seems like it would fracture such a philosophy as a movement and then pretty much all I can see going beyond there, Descartes put to rest.

 

How so ? And surely his writing was intended to be acceptable to a Pope . Do you
like his conception of androids who obviously cannot be reasonable ? I suspect he
reasoned urbanly and in support of a new urban development orderliness .

You are correct that Deep Ecology had its daY in the sun . When tree-sitting in an
old growth forest it was something to think about gazing into the dapple shadows
below - where home normally is . Yet , there is a broader philosophy where-in it can
rest easy . Likely not a grand Philosophy of Feeling . Nor to do with its subset , Eroticism .

 

At some point consciousness came into existence. Before that was dead matter (and afterwards I would argue, since each individual atom that makes up my body isn't really "alive" is it?). How could dead matter intentionally configure itself into such an arrangement that consciousness came into being? I don't think it's a fluke, either, but I don't think you really know what you're saying here. You seem to think that less organized cerebral networks had the intention of making themselves conscious.

Well first of all, I would argue that how conscious we think we are is magical. Because we think there is something special about consciousness. If really we're just matter that comes from the dust and returns to the dust and all this life is just meaningless, then all that is happening when consciousness is occuring is that matter is taking on different forms. There's no saying one form of matter is superior to any other form. I might as well be a rock or poop if consciousness isn't magical.

You can't totally explain the behavior of consciousness without explaining why it exists in the first place, which you have failed to do. You haven't provided any framework for why ordinary matter should suddenly become self-aware. There is no reason for dead matter to evolve.

The idea that my shit has a life of its own is actually the only means I can see of rectifying the situation. Dead matter does not evolve, but if all matter is self-aware on some level, then it can begin to evolve.

Give me a break! The origins of life isn't pertinent to a discussion on what is consciousness? I think it's a misnomer to say that any matter is living, isn't it? What about my atoms makes them alive? They are all dead, right? Each and every smallest part of me is actually dead.

My point of contention is that I am alive and I know that this life is meaningful and significant, but there is absolutely nothing about the constituent parts I'm supposedly made of that suggest the existence of anything special at all. How can lifeless matter produce something meaningful is what I want to know. There's no point in arguing that it's not meaningful. We can only function as if it is.

 

I don't know what you mean in regards to the androids. He put it to rest by his meditations which showed that feelings and sensations are secondary (or perhaps tertiary) behind thought and for him given by God.

 

By definition, biopoiesis is "dead matter" (being generous and using your verbage) going to living matter.

This is an A --> B process. I think consciousness is produced by the brain, so your demand is asking me to go to like an A --> X explanation, which I think is unreasonable, perhaps even seeing these phenomena linked is reliant on a causal temporal view.

I already provided an explanation why consciousness is beneficial to living organisms within the framework of evolution. Unknown origins of the phenomena doesn't invalidate observations and explanations made about it, that'd be like saying because we don't understand how matter became disproportiante to anti-matter in our universe, we can't explain anything about matter. I am providing an explanation within given parameters of why consciousness would be a useful adaptation in the framework of evolution.

 

Oh. Well now we know that you know what bioposeis is. Thanks for that contribution to this thread. How many people are impressed? Raise your hands! *hand shoots up*

No, it's really an A --> X process. Consciousness doesn't benefit dead matter whatsoever. So consciousness is really just this "thing" that comes about. It isn't good or bad, ugly or beautiful, et cetera et cetera. It is mystery X. You have to explain why consciousness is still meaningful if you're going to insist that it's created through bioposeis. You have to explain this because we have to exist as though our consciousness is meaningful. But there can be absolutely no proof that dead matter coming to life has ever gained any ounce of meaning through having come to life. If a rock suddenly composes a breathtaking opera, it's still just a fucking rock. And to put it on a pedestal would be absolutely ludicrous.

No, you really haven't. Like I've said ad nauseum now, if matter is deluding itself into thinking its survival is important, this isn't beneficial to it. On the contrary, consciousness is giving what is essentially unremarkable matter the run-around by making it think its survival is important. Explain to me how it's so beneficial for stupid meat to think that it's progressing towards some pinnacle of achievement when the sum total of all it will ever be is dumb meat.

It's not just unknown origins. It's unknown meaning. No one has proved that there is anything about our matter that makes it special as opposed to a rock. Like i keep repeating, we could be even worse than a rock, because a rock doesn't go around pretending to be something it can never be.

So what really does need to be explained is why we are important and why we believe we are important with every ounce of our being.

 

It's just so Idealized now . Shmoothed . Like Descartes say : I write , therefore I may eat . It's Ideal , really .
As to the android I have envisioned , it has been criticized for its complete lack of humanoid randomness
programming ... don't know what that means , and anyway , the critic was only speaking in a dream . When
I awoke to a bark , I note the dog brute was yet sleeping and dreaming , running but nowhere really . Very
strange , my dearest Galileo . And , yes , I will compose a note to the Pope on behalf of your troubles with
the lesser men who torment you .


An emotion arises with an enlightenment , and I shall be happy for your every elation . With my
last enlightenment , however , there followed a moment of tearfulness . A little sorrow for an
emptiness .

But what reasoning may follow the vision of a joyous and rightious zen wonder joke ? I cannot say , or
perhaps I choose not to . I can be unaware of the difference ... reasonably , and unplagued with doubt .
As when I walk about and a stranger comes along knowing secret things about me and happens to
mention one of them . Perhaps that seems true , I reply , it seems good enough and positive , I reply ,
and I don't care about such as that mostly . I dream well , trusting . Dreaming in geometry and viewing
a mandala or then more simply just a circle seems trustworthy . Probably that circle is perfect as can be .

Trusting conciousness ? Some do not . Some will delete a reality to present an Ideal .

 

Interesting point and it's often difficult to discern whether that lack of trust is due to close mindedness or sacrifice for higher aspirations. Perhaps in some sense they are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

Ah , dualism . Just this morning I believe when at first one equals two then an orgamism's conciousness begins .
My conciousness ; organically emergent when I the egg began to grow . The essential feeling of existence being
of 2 ideas - growing + space - (as like a garden ?) . The feeling of existence is mine to possess from the beginning .

 

I am not comfortable with this. I really don't know that a single celled organism doesn't possess some quality of mind. It takes in information and responds to it. It might be "like" something to do so. It's hard to say whether the single celled organism has a perspective or not, but I wouldn't completely rule it out. I'm not sure that "knowing" is something that is performed by a brain. Rather I think all information might know something and might have a sense of being by way of its very existence. In other words "to possess information" is the equivalent of "to know" and all things possess information that is in conflict with information it is receiving. This grants it self-awareness and is change itself.

By the same token, do we know that we are our own body, or do we think we're something more? So in a way we lack self-awareness. We don't know what consciousness is and can't physically perceive ourselves as we actually are. As I've been discussing with gorillabedlam, there is virtually no way of looking in the mirror and telling whether the matter you're looking at has any ostensible worth or value. There's no way of telling what you're looking at. So to a degree, we are not perfectly self-aware.

Yet this is a sociopathic way of viewing one's self. On the contrary, we have to look in the mirror and see something of value, or we are supposed to. But why? What gives it worth? Are our opinions alone enough to give things worth -- is this all that worth really is? In which case, what worth has worth?

So I'm not sure that consciousness is dependent upon self-awareness, because I am conscious but can imagine something more self-aware than I am. And then I question, "If I am not totally self-aware, can I really be said to be self-aware at all? Is my idea of self-awareness just an illusion?"

I don't think consciousness itself comes in degrees. There is just "sense of being" and "mind". Sense of being I describe as knowing, and mind I describe as the place in which the sense of being seems to occur. For different gradations of self-awareness time passes in different ways and thus the minds in which the beings occur are vastly different.

But to experience is simply to experience. I can shut off my thoughts and simply take in information, and I am still conscious. I think other things that have no thoughts can take in information and perhaps be conscious as well.

 

But is recognizing oneself in the mirror the essence of self-awareness? Or is it like, just knowing that your information is distinct from the information you are receiving? I wouldn't think a snake would recognize itself in the mirror either, but then again the universe at large is sort of a mirror. What you are is sort of reflected in what you are not, and I think a snake realizes what it is not. Maybe it could be said to be too self-aware because it isn't interested in anything it is not, which is why it isn't interested in the mirror. Because technically we aren't seeing ourselves when we look in a mirror but just a reflection. The snake knows it is not the mirror, so it will not look.

It's hard for me to understand this because like I say I think self-awareness might just be information making the distinction between itself and something else, which all information must do every time it encounters other information. Maybe this sort of self-awareness is where consciousness begins rather than the other way around. But then again, information is so immediate that perhaps consciousness does come first, because although two pieces of info. are different, they are essentially so co-dependent that they can't recognize a distinction between themselves and the information that is effecting them.

 

Just found out about this research, weird and interesting stuff...

http://youtu.be/iPhtvp2q1sU

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/this-drone-has-artificial-intelligence-modelled-on-honey-bee-brains