Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:39pm PT
|
Is anybody paying attention?
Oh oh. See what you hath wrought?
The Magic Word.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 08:54pm PT
|
we do exhibit the property of having consciousness
Yes this is what it's all about.
Every living entity exhibits consciousness.
Consciousness is the symptom of life itself.
The crux is the source of consciousness.
The modern theory that the brain is the source of consciousness is very poor fund of knowledge due to body consciousness.
We are NOT the body .....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 09:41pm PT
|
Awhile ago I suggested consciousness is something we have to have for survival. We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
We have a problem here in that "consciousness" does not mean the same thing to everyone. To get around that let us refer to a new property called "C".
If we have C we know what things must be defended against threats.
The presence of that knowledge can be tested.
Now might there be a way to test this hypothesis? Possibly. The barrier between us and not us is possibly not known at birth or prior to birth. It is probably not present at conception. So we have a period of time during which the beginnings of C are learned. Once it has formed the creature will take defensive actions not observed prior to learning. The learning process will be complex and different for each threat. At the start C would focus on preservation of the body. Later on we might even include inside the defended structure things like our bank accounts. People have been known to defend these quite aggressively.
An example I have experienced might be as follows. Immediately after birth my daughter took her first look at me and promptly stuck out her lower lip. (A behavior frequently displayed by her mother.) I was quite a bit larger than herself. Another example. Again, right after birth and extending for a few months, while looking directly at her right hand she would make a fist over and over again. She was C her hand was something she could control. It was part of her. She also took every opportunity to hold ice in her hands so she could get other sensations from the hand. This could be seen as a broad brush investigation of the signals coming from that part of herself and a process telling her the hand was indeed part of herself.
What might a test for the formation of C look like?
1. Take something like newly formed amoebae(?) with no prior experience.
a. Take one and pose a direct threat to it. Poke it with a needle? How long does this go on before enough C is developed to cause defensive action?
b. Take a second amoeba and place it in a dilute solution preventing the same sensory inputs indicating a threat. Does defensive action develop?
c. Put amoebe a in the same solution and see if shows the same defensive responses it displayed previously. If it does, we know it is C of the threat even though the sensory inputs have been altered and are new. It knows where its interface is.
This is not to say this is the best or only way to learn when a creature develops C of what survival requires it to defend. Our task is only to show that tests can be performed in a period of time that indicate when a creature develops C.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 07:14am PT
|
It seems to me every one who is serious about mind needs to be familiar with the hyperloop...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
Just imagine it: only 35 minutes travel time from a Zen Center in LA to a Zen Center in SF. How cool is that?!
Elon Musk: It is conceived, so let it be done.
re: AI and existential threat, Elon Musk at MIT and "Summoning the demon"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rfHNvHu8OE
"Summoning the Demon"
"I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I were to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with artificial intelligence. I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon. You know those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram, and the holy water, and he’s like — Yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon? Doesn’t work out." -Elon Musk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJjx12wkVQ
hyperloop: at 56:40
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 08:40am PT
|
We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
An interesting perspective. How will we view the action of the soldier who sacrifices him-or-herself to save their buddies?
How do we view social animals like bees and ants?
And it took over 2 billion years for life on earth to go from single-cell to multi-cell. That was a big step for C.
How does one go from recognizing one's own interface and looking out for one's number one to cooperation with others? When do the benefits of cooperation outweigh the risks? Do you need to forget or lose part of yourself in order to work in a group? Or does one redefine their sense of self?
In the same or a different vein: summoning the demon? Humans have a tendency to see themselves in control of their fate. As if we could summon a demon. It seems more likely to me that we will be bumbling along, turn a corner, and there the demon will be.
Or if we get lucky, an angel.
http://www.sfsite.com/08b/mth87.htm
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:45am PT
|
We have consciousness when we know where the interface lies between us and not us. Knowing where that interface lies tells us what we have to defend against danger. As I said before, if true, this would mean any creature no matter how small that takes action to avoid danger would have consciousness.
This may or may not have anything to do with the source of consciousness. There are any number of properties of consciousness that seem to have nothing to do with survival or even the perception of reality. Our perceptions as constructions of mind stand separately/apart from the actual reality of the perceived object.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 09:52am PT
|
"This may or may not have anything to do with (the source of) consciousness." -Paul
Based on my studies and experience, I'd bet this ability / competence to draw a distinction between self/environs or us/them has much to do with the evolved fundamentals of consciousness.
The problem is Paul, imo, is that it seems you see very little if anything re the mind or thought or feeling from the perspective of evolution.
Minds evolved. Feelings evolved. Paul, I don't think you accept this. (So in this regard you see the world little different from the fundamentalist Abrahamican (Christian or Muslim) who thinks there's a ghost behind the body machine that drives it.) You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Minds evolved. Feelings evolved. It's only THE BASIS of today's evolutionary psychology.
In my Dead Atheists Society group, there are a couple of self-identifying "evolutionists" who think like the Pope and his Church...
"Yes yes limbs evolved, DNA evolved, even eyes evolved but not mind or feelings." -the faux evolutionist
These guys don't get it, the larger picture, that is, sorry to say.
.....
Understanding that toes and appendices evolved is one thing (an easy peasy c 5.3d? in this day and age?); while understanding that neural machinery responsible for thought and feeling, also moral sentiments starting with attraction and repulsion, eg, is another apparently (< 5.11 ?) at least for a great many.
.....
I should add I also think Jan is a "beta evolutionist" aka "quasi-evolutionist" (aka "faux evolutionist" according to some).
Sadly it seems only a fraction of those self-identifying as "evolutionists" are actually full-throated, full-on evolutionists.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 10:14am PT
|
It seems we just can't stay away from religious references (sorry jgill). The model of consciousness that jstan is proposing has been around for at least the past 4,000 years in the forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. The Jains who are a sect of Hinduism, take this to its most extreme by wearing masks so they won't accidentally inhale any insects and are known to sleep on straw mats with fleas to offer themselves to the fleas. Some of them also eat only fruits and nuts that have already fallen from trees, as they understand plants to have a type of consciousness also.
Of course, the ultimate hypocrisy is when we boil the water in places like India and Nepal and slaughter thousands if not millions of those conscious little beings. Since the locals don't see them, they don't worry about that. As for myself, knowing how hard it is to kill amebas once they have invaded my body, I take delight in killing the little *@#$%&+^ and given how much suffering they've caused me over the years, really don't have compassion for them. I have compassion for sentient beings until it comes to amoebas, giardia, fleas and lice. I justify this by saying they are engaged in violating the Buddhist precept of right livelihood. The other trouble makers I'm vaccinated against.
I did once hear a high ranking Tibetan priest say that Buddhism is anti evolution. I was dismayed as I had always understood differently. Then he explained, evolution is all about selfishness and survival. Buddhism is about selflessness and even giving up one's life to save another. The wonder is that as mentioned above, insects with much less intelligence have managed this philosophy without moral teachings. Then again, they seldom fight to the death and enslave each other over symbols and ideas. Biological evolution has more than a few contradictions like that. Culture appears to have evolved in part, to correct our own excesses.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 10:24am PT
|
"The model of consciousness that jstan is proposing has been around for at least the past 4,000 years in the forms of Hinduism and Buddhism." -Jan
Not from a modern science perspective it hasn't. In other words not from a modern (control) systems and neurobiologic perspective.
Really this comment is no different from saying the model of evolution that Darwin proposed has been around for at least a couple thousand years (as many ancients, for eg from Greece, believed Man derived from fish).
The ancients, even "earlies" 500 years ago, certainly didn't model consciousness on brain machinery and its complex mechanisms.
From a scientific context, if that's what we're in, we should strive to be accurate, whats more we should strive not to be misleading.
.....
"In 5-billion yrs the Sun will expand & engulf our orbit as the charred ember that was once Earth vaporizes. Have a nice day." -NdGT
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 11:47am PT
|
Sorry fructose, I will never confine myself to just one system of thought. Meanwhile you might ponder where your preference for singular explanations comes from. Monotheism can take many forms you know.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 12:05pm PT
|
So what's next Jan, will it be you telling students it was Anaximander who came up with "the model of evolution" 2500 years ago? Are we to have no standards on the justification that all systems of thought count, that every system of thought is as good as any other? go ahead, everybody does it, change perspectives or points of view at will till you get one that agrees with your sentiments?
Thank Atheist-God my "preference" is adhering to modern science as a standard particularly where facts matter (or where facts vs contrafacts are in contention for attention).
Have a nice day. :)
.....
"In the morning... call me Caitlyn"
That's just nuts.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 12:46pm PT
|
My device of discussing "C" instead of "Consciousness" was rejected by just one poster, I
think. Doing this allowed us to avoid 1000 confused posts over several years attempting to
reconcile all of our differing personal feelings as to what Consciousness is. We could get down
to discussing "C" as it was defined, right away.
Also I limited myself to considering only the early evolutionary stages and the dynamical forces
that may have been operative at that time. If tests show a plausible connection between "C"
and the development of defensive modes among specie- maybe we have conclusion.
Whatever "C" is, it is something widely possessed. We have to await the tests to see if "C" is
learned and when it is learned.
Feels good to be able to hope for a conclusion.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 12:49pm PT
|
If you don't care for history, no problem. We each have our own interests. Fish aren't one of my interests either as food or symbolism.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 01:00pm PT
|
The angler fish may have an interesting story to tell. When did the bait stem develop in this
specie? Is the physiology of the fish such that survival required the development of such an
organ? The smaller size of the more "unimportant" male suggests significant pressure on the
specie. And incorporating the male's body into that of the female suggests an increase in
efficiency. Has the angler fish retained sexual reproduction? Perhaps by having the testes emit
its sperm into the water instead of directly into the female?
That stuff is real history.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 01:10pm PT
|
"That stuff is real history." jstan
No doubt.
That stuff got me hooked. On biology. On evolution.
On history and even fish, too. :)
Sheepshead, for instance. A Ca spearfishing favorite. The male turns into the female after a period of time. Or is it vice versa? so long ago now... lol
Just checked. It's female to male.
So it's something of a bruce jenner in reverse.
Call me Bruce. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_sheephead
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 04:56pm PT
|
Nevertheless, if you can demonstrate that raw awareness takes one into the infinitesimal world of QM by uncovering something physicists have not seen, you will have earned a Nobel Prize
Gill just summed it up in one sentence.
Can you do that, JL?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 05:22pm PT
|
uncovering something physicists have not seen
Physicists haven't seen sh!t yet.
They're so arrogant making stoopid claims and misleading everyone.
They're just plain stuck in their miserable finite little material world.
Open the door and you'll see the real everything ......
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 05:27pm PT
|
So we might as well call ourselves a nation based on traditional Hittite values, only filtered through Judaic copyists.
i'm certainly enthralled with the whole story. Like what got man with his monkey mind use of tools to grow out of the jungle, to building pyramids in the desert? We can only understand from what they've left behind. Hammurabi may be credited with recording some laws. But certainly others were around doing the same, the Egyptians for example.
Could it have been Homo-sapiens awareness to love which caused him the need for laws? Or maybe his laws drove his awareness of love?
Whichever rte they both, love and law seem to go hand in hand as far as Man's social conscious is concerned.
It's interesting that man's intellect as we see it some 4k yrs ago in the few recordings we have. Mostly had to do with love, laws, and war.
Moses wrote Genesis estimated at 1300-1250 BC. His account from God tells of a man and women NAKED, and unashamed in a garden. God gave them free reign except for ONE law, don't eat from this tree. Together they respected the law. It was when a third opinion entered the garden, one opposed to God's, that they challenged and broke the law.(i think this is why christians are skeptical of scientist!) After man broke the law his awareness was that of shame and fear. He scurried to cover himself up and hide.
It makes me wonder if we could communicate with monkey's and tried the same experiment, what would be the outcome?
Jan,
so the 10 commandments are Laws handed down to Moses from God. The ol'timer's refer to them as The Law. Some include the entire old test. with the other 600+ laws under the title, The Law. You understand laws. Today if you were to go 90mph in a posted 50mph, you would be punished with a fine of $550. or something justifiably fair. This is civil, and good. And virtually every law we have levies on our bodily actions. There just aren't many secular laws dealing with emotional distress. i wouldn't get fined if i flipped you off, or pissed you off. In the OT they didn't have laws stating 50mph speed limit, obviously. They had thou shalt not eat pork, for their own ligetimant reasons. These 600+ laws are material laws, and carried a material fine. Here lies the problem, one believes when he pays his material dept, he is in right-standing spiritually with God. NOT true. When one paid his material debt, it only opened the door for spiritual awareness. One still needed to repent, and many dropped the ball. That's why God is able to say,'I never knew you'. There are many religions practicing this method today, christians alike.
The 10 commandment's differ from the other 600. In that they aren't as much a material law as they are a spiritual one. Christian's can see this because they are brought out of the bondage of the Law through Jesus Christ. If you look close, you'll reconize God didn't give these to man to preach at one another. We are to read them as individuals, as if God were telling us directly. They are a spiritual model for a Whole kind of Love, an agoppy Love. We were created to experience different types of love. Our hearts prove that to our minds. The first 4 show us the path for a love of our Creator. The next 6 show us how to love our parents, love ourselfs, and love our neighbors. If we are disobedient to 1 of these 10, we are failing to love, thus being disobedient to all 10. When we are obedient to all 10, our Love is inline with God's Love, which align's ourown love with our parents, and our friends.
This is the 10 comm. meaning i was referring to when i said all modern-man has the 10 written in their hearts :)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 06:47pm PT
|
In fact take my body who will, take it I say, it is not me.
Does this sound like an oyster to you?
Are silkworms cosmologists?
Do humans have good imaginations?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2015 - 07:50pm PT
|
We wonder what they're discussing...
The distinction between "awareness" and "consciousness"?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!