Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

[GrayArea]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

[Sy Borg]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Ok. I wasn't sure what meant with "we're the line itself". Life, by definition, is active separation from everything, including each other, for a while. Mentally, things are less distinct. I believe it takes an infant between seven and twelve months to see itself as separate to the mother. Still, an infant would see this self/mother as separate from everything else.

[GrayArea]

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Ok. I wasn't sure what meant with "we're the line itself". Life, by definition, is active separation from everything, including each other, for a while. Mentally, things are less distinct. I believe it takes an infant between seven and twelve months to see itself as separate to the mother. Still, an infant would see this self/mother as separate from everything else.

I believe that "seeing itself as separate" and "being separate" (Life) are different too. What I meant when I said things about "mentality" was more of a latter. The infant would first have to be actually separate to begin with, in order to see itself as whatever—whether it be the mother or the infant themselves. The brain of this infant and the brain of the mother are two different entities so it should simply have two different thought processes going on, governed by their own separate brains.

Then again, the key point here is that this is still me talking about how "I see things" as.

Here we see the point in which words fail us.

You may wish to understand my point through words. However, words cannot contain the source of the words, which is the subject that we are at least attempting to talk about as of now. Thus, I cannot and will not be able to make others understand the exact, precise nature of how the boundaries between consciousness as we call it and “THE consciousness” are set.

Our conversation may have reached a point of meaninglessness. To me, all this is meaningless to wonder. We should not be thinking about this, we should simply BE. Action as opposed to pondering. Move on with life.

This response was written in words.

[Sy Borg]

Our conversation may have reached a point of meaninglessness. To me, all this is meaningless to wonder. We should not be thinking about this, we should simply BE. Action as opposed to pondering. Move on with life.

That's okay, everything in life is meaningless. Simply being certainly is meaningless. As is "moving on with life", performing the usual perfunctory tasks until death, with individuality defined by subtle variations that only certainly other humans and dogs would even notice, and far fewer could care about.

Personally, I find the meaningless pastime of wondering about the nature of consciousness more interesting than most the meaningless pastimes on offer.

[GrayArea]

Our conversation may have reached a point of meaninglessness. To me, all this is meaningless to wonder. We should not be thinking about this, we should simply BE. Action as opposed to pondering. Move on with life.

That's okay, everything in life is meaningless. Simply being certainly is meaningless. As is "moving on with life", performing the usual perfunctory tasks until death, with individuality defined by subtle variations that only certainly other humans and dogs would even notice, and far fewer could care about.

Personally, I find the meaningless pastime of wondering about the nature of consciousness more interesting than most the meaningless pastimes on offer.

Interesting. Getting a bit off tangent here but I think that "simply being" is as meaningful as anything else we do. Personally I take the stance that only wondering about the nature of "being" is meaningless, not that to exist is meaningless by itself.

Simply being, and moving on with life, they are all meaningful, because it's what we all will inevitably end up doing in life. Not because it holds any significance, but because it happens.

It is the broadest definition of our existence.

[Sy Borg]

Our conversation may have reached a point of meaninglessness. To me, all this is meaningless to wonder. We should not be thinking about this, we should simply BE. Action as opposed to pondering. Move on with life.

That's okay, everything in life is meaningless. Simply being certainly is meaningless. As is "moving on with life", performing the usual perfunctory tasks until death, with individuality defined by subtle variations that only certainly other humans and dogs would even notice, and far fewer could care about.

Personally, I find the meaningless pastime of wondering about the nature of consciousness more interesting than most the meaningless pastimes on offer.

Interesting. Getting a bit off tangent here but I think that "simply being" is as meaningful as anything else we do. Personally I take the stance that only wondering about the nature of "being" is meaningless, not that to exist is meaningless by itself.

Simply being, and moving on with life, they are all meaningful, because it's what we all will inevitably end up doing in life. Not because it holds any significance, but because it happens.

It is the broadest definition of our existence.

Yes, a bit of a digression. Whatever, I think there is tremendous value in pondering the nature of consciousness. Then again, I see value in pondering many things, which of course is "moving on" in its own way :)

For me, the biggest questions are: 1) Will humanity, or its successor/s, pass The Great Filter? 2) Can consciousness be digitised or created? and 3) Is there a way of travelling faster than light?

[GrayArea]

Our conversation may have reached a point of meaninglessness. To me, all this is meaningless to wonder. We should not be thinking about this, we should simply BE. Action as opposed to pondering. Move on with life.

That's okay, everything in life is meaningless. Simply being certainly is meaningless. As is "moving on with life", performing the usual perfunctory tasks until death, with individuality defined by subtle variations that only certainly other humans and dogs would even notice, and far fewer could care about.

Personally, I find the meaningless pastime of wondering about the nature of consciousness more interesting than most the meaningless pastimes on offer.

Interesting. Getting a bit off tangent here but I think that "simply being" is as meaningful as anything else we do. Personally I take the stance that only wondering about the nature of "being" is meaningless, not that to exist is meaningless by itself.

Simply being, and moving on with life, they are all meaningful, because it's what we all will inevitably end up doing in life. Not because it holds any significance, but because it happens.

It is the broadest definition of our existence.

Yes, a bit of a digression. Whatever, I think there is tremendous value in pondering the nature of consciousness. Then again, I see value in pondering many things, which of course is "moving on" in its own way

For me, the biggest questions are: 1) Will humanity, or its successor/s, pass The Great Filter? 2) Can consciousness be digitised or created? and 3) Is there a way of travelling faster than light?

Regarding your questions, they seem interesting—the same types of questions that I myself ponder about. I'm not an expert in any of these fields involved, but I still see merit in trying to approach the answer.

1) I think the answer will be revealed through the rise of a fully sentient Artificial Intelligence. It will be the zenith of humanity's creation and with its tremendous intelligence it will either guide us through the Great Filter or be one itself.

2) I think consciousness is more than something that can be digitised. I believe that it would be easier to base Man-made, Artificial Consciousness on more tangible things such as chemistry and biology, because I believe that tangibility is one of the key features of the physical building blocks of consciousness. However, I will not exclude the possibility that some certain aspects or functions that lead to consciousness could be digitised. Somewhere tangibility does not matter.

3) I've actually heard somewhere, while it's theoretical, that if one opens a wormhole and keeps it open, then one can travel back in time from the future, but only until the point in time where the wormhole was opened. There's no travelling before that.

[SteveKlinko]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

[GrayArea]

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

[Sy Borg]

2) I think consciousness is more than something that can be digitised. I believe that it would be easier to base Man-made, Artificial Consciousness on more tangible things such as chemistry and biology, because I believe that tangibility is one of the key features of the physical building blocks of consciousness. However, I will not exclude the possibility that some certain aspects or functions that lead to consciousness could be digitised. Somewhere tangibility does not matter.

If we were in a general thread about humanity's prospects or a cafe I'd engage on all three points but this is a thread on consciousness, so I'd best focus on that for now.

I used to think that consciousness required "wetware" - basically the biochem you referred to above. However, someone years ago (forgot whom) pointed out that electricity flows in much the same way as water. If life depends on the complexity and flexibility of fluid dynamics (which I suspect) then electricity should be able to replicate that, given that electricity behaves like a fluid. The technical challenges would be huge, given that both the human brain's capacity and the whole internet can be measures in petabytes.

If such a consciousness emerged it would be derived from human consciousness but would have to be immensely different in some respects, just as animal minds vary due to different morphology.

[GrayArea]

2) I think consciousness is more than something that can be digitised. I believe that it would be easier to base Man-made, Artificial Consciousness on more tangible things such as chemistry and biology, because I believe that tangibility is one of the key features of the physical building blocks of consciousness. However, I will not exclude the possibility that some certain aspects or functions that lead to consciousness could be digitised. Somewhere tangibility does not matter.

If we were in a general thread about humanity's prospects or a cafe I'd engage on all three points but this is a thread on consciousness, so I'd best focus on that for now.

I used to think that consciousness required "wetware" - basically the biochem you referred to above. However, someone years ago (forgot whom) pointed out that electricity flows in much the same way as water. If life depends on the complexity and flexibility of fluid dynamics (which I suspect) then electricity should be able to replicate that, given that electricity behaves like a fluid. The technical challenges would be huge, given that both the human brain's capacity and the whole internet can be measures in petabytes.

If such a consciousness emerged it would be derived from human consciousness but would have to be immensely different in some respects, just as animal minds vary due to different morphology.

Life primarily depending on the complexity of fluid dynamics is an interesting idea and one I have not heard of so far. However, I still think differently. I think that life depends more on the cell-like building blocks of a conscious medium, being able to create its own, self-sustaining system that sort of "translates" what happens on the outside of the system to their own digestible information using what they are made out of, and using its inner functions. Basically replicating the outside world using their own selves, and then as a result being able to control its whole collective self.

Cells follow the laws of physics, as all existing objects do. I believe that if the building blocks of the conscious medium are more accepting of more parts of what happens in the outside world (=more detailed parts of the laws of physics), then they can, in more complex ways, "translate" what happens on the outside—thus a more intricate and higher level of consciousness. Electrons are very accepting of a lot of parts of the laws of physics as they are fundamental particles which make up almost everything that follows laws of physics, but using only electrons to build up these so-called “cell-like building blocks" would be pretty ineffective, since one would need many other functions that interrelate.

Adding on, the inner function of the cell-like building blocks also contribute to the intricacy of the translation of the outside events, because these building blocks must not only translate the outside materials, but also the interactions they have with the outside events/laws of physics in order to fully translate the world.

That's to say, the more causally interrelated each materials that create the functions are, the better! Like compounds of chemicals and biological matter found in cells. These cells that are necessary for life will be at their fullest capable state if they are made out of complex and compound materials that are inherently more causally interrelated to each other than electrons, where they cause each other to create more inner actions and inner functions( = expanded method of "translating" the world which leads to a more detailed consciousness), as a result of being more interrelated.

[Sy Borg]

2) I think consciousness is more than something that can be digitised. I believe that it would be easier to base Man-made, Artificial Consciousness on more tangible things such as chemistry and biology, because I believe that tangibility is one of the key features of the physical building blocks of consciousness. However, I will not exclude the possibility that some certain aspects or functions that lead to consciousness could be digitised. Somewhere tangibility does not matter.

If we were in a general thread about humanity's prospects or a cafe I'd engage on all three points but this is a thread on consciousness, so I'd best focus on that for now.

I used to think that consciousness required "wetware" - basically the biochem you referred to above. However, someone years ago (forgot whom) pointed out that electricity flows in much the same way as water. If life depends on the complexity and flexibility of fluid dynamics (which I suspect) then electricity should be able to replicate that, given that electricity behaves like a fluid. The technical challenges would be huge, given that both the human brain's capacity and the whole internet can be measures in petabytes.

If such a consciousness emerged it would be derived from human consciousness but would have to be immensely different in some respects, just as animal minds vary due to different morphology.

Life primarily depending on the complexity of fluid dynamics is an interesting idea and one I have not heard of so far. However, I still think differently. I think that life depends more on the cell-like building blocks of a conscious medium, being able to create its own, self-sustaining system that sort of "translates" what happens on the outside of the system to their own digestible information using what they are made out of, and using its inner functions. Basically replicating the outside world using their own selves, and then as a result being able to control its whole collective self.

Cells follow the laws of physics, as all existing objects do. I believe that if the building blocks of the conscious medium are more accepting of more parts of what happens in the outside world (=more detailed parts of the laws of physics), then they can, in more complex ways, "translate" what happens on the outside—thus a more intricate and higher level of consciousness. Electrons are very accepting of a lot of parts of the laws of physics as they are fundamental particles which make up almost everything that follows laws of physics, but using only electrons to build up these so-called “cell-like building blocks" would be pretty ineffective, since one would need many other functions that interrelate.

Adding on, the inner function of the cell-like building blocks also contribute to the intricacy of the translation of the outside events, because these building blocks must not only translate the outside materials, but also the interactions they have with the outside events/laws of physics in order to fully translate the world.

That's to say, the more causally interrelated each materials that create the functions are, the better! Like compounds of chemicals and biological matter found in cells. These cells that are necessary for life will be at their fullest capable state if they are made out of complex and compound materials that are inherently more causally interrelated to each other than electrons, where they cause each other to create more inner actions and inner functions( = expanded method of "translating" the world which leads to a more detailed consciousness), as a result of being more interrelated.

If we accept the idea that interrelations between cells is the germ of consciousness, why couldn't those interrelating cells be synthetic?

[Pattern-chaser]

The idea of THE consciousness is interesting. Any more on this concept, or is it all just too effin ineffable?

What of the nexus between that general sense of being - "existence itself" - and individual consciousness that is shaped by the nervous system? Any ideas as to where the line is drawn? It seems to me that emotions are the link between physicality and mentality.

My idea as to where the line is drawn between physicality and mentality? I think we're the line itself. Or perhaps, what we call "we".

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

The question here is very strange to me. We are asking "what is the connection?", when surely the connections are many and varied, to the point where implying a single connection is misleading? I think we are supposed to understand this question as a figurative one, but even so...

The connections between body and mind are mechanical and physical, electrical and biological. And that's before we start to consider the more, er, abstract parts of these connections (i.e. where we look at the connections between mind and body, instead of those between the brain and the body). I think the connections between these two are many and multi-faceted, and not a single 'connection' at all. The two are intimately connected, perhaps to the point where it is not useful to consider the two as being separable or distinct in any meaningful sense?

[SteveKlinko]

The connectivity?

Connectivity as in what connects these two? I'm not really sure about that.

We're more like the beings that sets these two apart from each other, and as a result define both of them. However, I suppose in that sense, these two—physicality and mentality—can be considered connected, through ourselves.

Take a look at this Forum Topic on Connectism:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17727

While not intended, thanks for the reminder. I remembered that I left one of your questions in this thread unanswered, that was, how the attributes of Conscious Mind(Qualia) such as redness could spring from the Physical Mind. I think I have somewhat of a vague answer to this question:

They are essentially “how neurons are affected by the outside world in a specific way due to the specific nature of what they are made out of as well as their inner functions”.

I'll explain further because I don't want to be TOO vague either. Because of the laws of physics, materials are bound to react to some degree from outside impulses. Different materials are bound to react differently to each outside impulses, especially when it comes to cellular objects, they would react with more intensity as they have a lot of inner functions going on, as opposed to metal or wood which are just molecules combined together. Redness is when the specific frequency of the lightwave makes our neurons(out of all objects) react and activate in a certain specific way. To be more specific, it is how the neurons themselves translate that "red" frequency part of light into their own language, something they can describe only using what materials and functions they are made out of & how they are affected by this lightwave.

That is to say, redness can therefore be described as a frequency of light that is solely described by the neurons' own native materials and functions. And so this information of redness is spread throughout the neighboring neurons and is very easily understood by them, as redness is how only the neurons specifically "see" the "red" frequency of the light. How that frequency affects their materials and functions.

In a way, the creation of Qualia is akin to a process of translating a language.

But the question remains: How is this Translation done?