The Double-Aspect Theory of Consciousness

I’ve been more or less lol reading a book about Healing through Meditation or something of that sort and i came across interesting thoughts about consciousness and how it actually permeates not just our brains/minds but also our bodies - that we do in a sense have consciousness, real consciousness, as awareness, as signals I guess one might say, which runs thrugh every part of us, but we don’t know it. It’s really such a fascinating read. How little we know about the human brain, consciousness, the mind body connection and how everything is influenced by everything else within us.

We really are fascinating creatures, us humans, I think.

No, the indication is that I am not going to convince you of anything that you don’t want to believe. If you don’t want to believe in the truth, the truth is not what you will accept. And if you do want to believe in the truth, you will go to the trouble to find it. The links aren’t that hard to find on that threat, the videos stand out. To me, it is just too old of a story. And if you can’t Google, “androids youtube”, then obviously you aren’t interested.

Unambiguously define what you mean by “self-consciousness”, and I can probably point to an example within your reach.

I’m open to accepting the possibility, James; but I need more evidence, something more tangible, if I’m going to accept it as axiomatic.

Self-consciouness: a mode of subjective awareness cable of reflecting back upon itself.

Now make that coherent.

Are you trying to say that the entity is aware of its fingers and toes?
Or perhaps aware of it being aware?

Both options you listed are applicable.

Now can you list a technological device, a machine, capable of my definition of consciousness?

If that is your definition, then yes.
The PC sitting in front of you.

So, my computer is sentient? Just as sentient, as I am? More so?

Why doesn’t it communicate with me more often? You know, a good ol’ " Hey, Erik - how was work today? " would be nice…I guess my computer is anti-social…perhaps time for a new PC? A more amiable one? Sounds dandy!
Talker1.0pcicon.jpg

Well, I asked for a definition and got one. Should I have asked for a definition of human consciousness? Your definition works for vacuuming robots but it’s far from how consciousness is generally understood.

Remote recognition (observation) and memory updates belong to consciousness, as well as what you call “emotial consciousness”, but they don’t define it. As David Chalmers says, they are easy problems. What about experience, The Hard Problem of Consciousness?

You said “conscious”. Don’t start toying with the words.

Microsoft designed the operating system. What did you expect?

Your PC is aware of its peripheral devices, its “fingers and toes”. If you disconnect them or connect new peripherals, the PC automatically becomes aware of the changes (stipulation 1 from above).

Also even from bootup and throughout its processing, your PC builds and maintains a list of its control faculties; disk controllers, network controllers, storage controllers, and so on and maintains that list. It is aware of when that list has or has not been updated. It is aware of itself being aware (the second stipulation).

In addition, your PC is also aware of what is itself and what isn’t, and on many levels, internal and external. The operating system is aware of the difference between itself and application programs, monitoring and governing how much control application programs may have. When connected to the internet, the PC must stay aware of what is being sent to it versus what constitutes its own make up. The system protects itself from invaders (to a point). It is also aware of many types of possible periphery troubles. It knows when its printer (its “fingers”) isn’t printing. It is self-aware.

If you merely add cameras and a typical security application program that identifies movements to trigger recording, the PC has “remote recognition” of the surrounding environment. Of course, most Iphone today and some TV screens have face and voice recognition as well. Those application can also be put on your PC. A particular Sony TV (LX900) can tell who is in the room watching it, what programs they are watching, what part of the screen they are watching at what moment, and when they look away or walk away. Such in-house surveillance equipment is being sold to the public as “energy saving technology” (along with various utility usage surveillance equipment).

It is only a “hard problem” to those who haven’t defined what they mean by it.
YOU have to define what YOU mean when YOU say, “experience”. But if it is at all real, there are computers already doing it that aren’t all that sophisticated.

The only remaining actual “hard problem” left is making the android appear and sound so much like a human that you cannot tell that you are being replaced with a less expensive and more capable upgrade.

James, I asked your definition of consciousness knowing well that no explicit definition exists. Still people have excellent insights and intuitions which are always worth hearing, notwithstanding whether they call them definitions or something else. But you look things from engineering (“God-creator”) viewpoint: if it can’t be defined, it doesn’t exist.

Can machines become living beings?

Can machines get a living being consciousness?

Sentience, awareness, consciousness…they are synonymous. Don’t get nit-picky.

I can’t believe I’m entertaining this load of malarkey about how our PC’s are conscious, like we humans are; but honestly, I think we have reached an impasse; I feel like we are both just repeating ourselves.

I will let others continue this specific dialogue.

Without definitions, no discussion has meaning. With loose definitions, nothing can ever be proven. With precise definitions, certainty can be known. People don’t establish clear definitions when they don’t want the truth to be known, but rather keep all things uncertain and obfuscated so as to hide the persuader, the devil within.

The only issue is that you are not providing any reasoning for your claim at all, whereas I have.

And I did not say that your PC was “conscious like humans”. In some regards they are more conscious and in others, far less so. You claimed that no artificial mechanism could have any consciousness at all such that non-conscious entities could not establish consciousness. Even your PC establishes a degree of consciousness and from that, higher and higher consciousness can arise and far above that of any human.

Sorry, but you were wrong and living in denial.

You’re such a bull terrier, Erik :mrgreen:
Couldn’t that definition of self-consciousness be called memory, Erik?

Ha!

Memory is the ability to recollect past events; self-consciousness ( my definition ) is the ability to reflect back upon itself ( consciousness reflecting on its own consciousness ), as it were.

:mrgreen:

I think that memory can be more automatic than the ability for something…the human body has memory which gathers present events, emotional experiences, that’s also self-consciousness.

Consciousness is in the present moment of awareness - why the "reflecting back upon one’s self? That still seems like memory to me. Consciousness is also an immediate experience…a good word for it to me would be “flow”.

Give me an example of what occurs when YOU reflect on your own consciousness, Erik.

Yes, regular consciousness is in the present moment, not reflecting on itself; but I was defining self-consciousness, when I stated: " consciousness reflecting on consciousness [ I.e., consciousness reflecting on itself ] ".

An example of what occurs when I reflect on myself: A sense of ’ I Am-ness ’ — thoughts of my own existence, the oddity of existence itself.

Symbolic language is a necessary premise of self-consciousness. It makes possible to refer to yourself, your thoughts and feelings, etc, and conceive past, present and future. Consequently only humans can be self-conscious.

This is my definition and I think it’s near if not equal to Erik’s. There are other definitions but they are due to different definitions of consciousness itself.

Erik

Please don’t take a bite out of my leg, especially since I am such a hideous creature - oh on second thought, you probably wouldn’t want to bite the leg of a hideous witch - so I’m safe.
Anyway, I’m still not necessarily sure that self- consciousness is consciousness reflecting on consciousness but I may be totally wrong here. Wouldn’t that just be self-awareness.

That is self reflection and thought and being flowing in the present moment but not consciousness reflecting on consciousness.
Maybe I’m a bit confused here but I have a problem with how consciousness can reflect consciousness.

When we use the word “self” we’re usually referring to our own personal identity and how we see ourselves, factually and personality wise. But is that pure consciousness or ego?

Perhaps we come a bit closer to consciousness reflecting consciousness for example when we look at a tree, “see” it without thought or personal reflection…just gazing on it. At some point, we disappear in a sense, that tree and our self will merge into pure one-ness, will interface and perhaps then consciousness will be reflecting consciousness.
:confusion-helpsos:

Having read the posts, JSS presented the position I hold too well enough, [size=50]better than I would have been able to[/size], and as you seem disinterested in further dialogue about the subject Erik, I won’t bother you.

But I’ll just clarify about the jellyfish

My point is precisely that your standard of intuitively judging whether something is conscious/subjective or not is fallible.

If you showed a decapitated, moving snake to somebody who never ever saw a snake and doesn’t know it should have a head, the person would most likely believe it is a conscious animal similar to a worm, with no necessarily distinguishable head from the body, wouldn’t you agree? And if they DID go in the direction of reasoning that it is unconscious and its just that its nerves are responding to external stimuli, it would most probably be because it would share a number of feats signifying death present in other animals as well - its bottom is slashed open, it’s bleeding from one end like other animals missing a body part do, etc.

So your intuitive claim that this is all a “load of malarkey” doesn’t carry much weight I think.