nonetheless

Language is not unique to humans, as animals have a language of their own, and human language itself is limited in its expression of nature. I wouldn't be able to describe the accurate shade of any color to anyone. Language is a recent arrival to human consciousness, according to a father of linguistics N Chomsky. Wonder what the notion of consciousness was (did we even have it ?) before this new landmark in evolution. Wonder what Plato's cave man would think about consciousness given what current AI's can do in the shadow If consciousness is an emergent phenomena as in illusionism, and not baked into the physical reality from the beginning, as in pansychism, which would be more sensible to you, or any other theory https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-your-consciousness-is-an-illusion-created-by-your-brain It's a fuzzy, difficult enough subject that does not seem to merit certainty of religious instincts. Various theories of exploration seem consistent in its own right under necessary assumptions The notion of determinism, as related to consciousness seems an example of this get go assumption, that it was already deterministic in the beginning. That free will is an illusion, its already been traced back to the singular origin. Now is a resulting cascading interaction of deterministic states of priors. Whether this is valid or not almost entirely depends on acceptance of this assumption, a belief part of human consciousness Strangely this deterministic notion seems to be derived from the state religion of the failing roman empire of 4th century, the notion of "original sin" derived from roman slavery law, your father is a slave, you are a slave. The modern version owing its determined state due these prior deterministic As for "supernatural" this seems to be tied to similar belief driven instincts, whether physics of singularity (cosmic immaculate conception) or religion Give us one big miracle we'll take care of the rest, observed R Sheldrake/T McKenna Aside from gaining valuable insights of various schools of thought discussed, It would seem to me any notion of religious affinity to theories does not travel far. Whether theories of consciousness, cosmology, or a quantum superposition of both. According to current laws of physics, such confidence vector would rapidly lose its strength away from earth by square of distance. If sent in photons, it would tire from red-shift, struggling to go beyond heliopause, maybe to alpha cantauri, just maybe to the edge of cygnus-x1. In the "language" of math, sticking to such beginning assumption would result in a big vector swing of error where it goes

Hiding behind irony will not save you Its time we hear your ideas of consciousness for public scrutiny

I agree we all should. Supernatural is your private concept, not mine. No need to assume non-scientific, in the minds of dead-atom-scientists appararently, to be supernatural. I only see nature illusionism per wiki, as another viewpoint of consciousness Illusionism is a metaphysical theory about free will first propounded by professor Saul Smilansky of the University of Haifa. Although there exists a theory of consciousness bearing the same name (illusionism), it is important to note that the two theories are concerned with different subjects. And of Consciousness and its connection to determinism, and a challenge of differing scientific opinions to the assumption of universe being deterministic https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/ We can look at it another way head-on, as a direct challenge to the assumptions of what consciousness is. How do you know anyone's viewpoint (including mine) posted here is from a human consciousness not advanced AI, in consideration of "indistinguishable from human answer." How would you know this in the context of consciousness, human or machine ? In terms of evolving definition of consciousness discussed, we are already beyond Turing test of yesterday, and beyond "Replicant Test" (Blade Runner) of future. What would separate us with this cosmic special previleged endowment of consciousness distinguishable from mere machines ? As for ad hominem of "you should", it's for amateurs and gen-z Love to hear your definition and notion of consciousness for public consumption

Non-scientific (for lack of adequate scientific definition already mentioned) is supernatural ? Panpsychism, dualism, illusionism, even plato's cave ideas are all scientific schools of thought trying to clear some mystery worse than "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" of Churchill in describing soviet political mindset

Who says this is supernatural, why the presumption ? I thought Nietzche forcibly retired god, because he is created in image of man, and of course he can retire like the rest of us

Agreed for each own, anyone could be off target. This seems to be about scientific discussion, exploration, sharing reasonable concepts, not about hard boiled eggo views, uninterested in chicken-or-egg-first question due presumption. They just want to eat it. Problem is eggs are hard to come by these days, something about viral flu R.F. other thoughts I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems (consciousness is one, added) is just as dumb as the next guy or See that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man or We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on

Another bit of R Feynman wisdom to those pretending to have certainty answers I would rather have question can't be answered than answer can't be questioned

Showing, no one can (can you, one way or other), we can only discuss, using limited science we have. Anyone can make a case

Someone's dogma consciousness, not internally evolving will be overcome with eventual external acceptance in some shape and form at one's lost opportunity expense, call it fate. It's also possible this external consciousness does not actuate at all. Afterall we are talking about a subject matter that is not defined adequately in the first place to warrant any such narrow HW default view from the get go Every private view of anything is valid, and indisputable within ones own 3lb atomic mass. It's not easy lazy in the public forum of ideas and discussion, particularly a "science" forum. Any relevant idea's sensibility and underlying logic/rational are weighed, measured, analyzed. Crosstalk errors of private/public communication seems inevitable, whether individually or small group of a particular scientific discipline. Varying understanding/interpretation of scientific theories (e.g., QM) are highly visible Could be wrong, but I don't believe this is a dogmatic echo chamber where incest of logos lives A famous reported incident of Galileo comes to mind when trying to show the moons of Jupiter to a vatican high wig No, no need to look, truth of it is in this book, just look here

This sounds much better, increasing entropy, gas expansion, second law of thermodynamics Crosstalk has been confirmed Carl Jung, of universal consciousness, would have something to say When an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate Love the humility of R. Feynman It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.

T.S. Eliot said it best We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

Recently had a casual pleasure of watching a debate on utube, between three eminent scientists, of string/multiverse/quantum discipline, including a nobel laureate. A debate of exploring respective theories. Not particularly pretty. Lots of disagreements. Occasional "that doesn't make a sense", or "that's just wrong" Each theory seems consistent and convincing in its privacy, yet cross checked against premises of theories outside, questions are raised. This crosstalk error seems to be related to the weight of its eventual public acceptance Even then it would succumb to the biology of ideas over time, losing its assertive confidence, replaced with something better, more sensible, more up to date, whether science, religion, philosophy, music, politics, empires, galaxy, or iphone thesis antithesis synthesis paresis paralysis - born rejected adopted failed died, repeat Open free science discussions are in same meaningful context

It would be challenging of exclusivity of a few data members, over the cosmic data set of gradation. We are atoms, like everything else, we are conscious (or made of), like everything else. Egalite may be a reasonable initial cut of occam's razor As for awareness, this seems to be a processed product of data via senses. Arriving at neuron sometime after "happened", obeying respective speed limits of acoustic/electrical/photonic at detectors. Build a cascade of activation potential to fire, eventually leading to a processed product of awareness. If memory is involved, additional penalty of read/write SSD latency is considered. It seems awareness is a jhonny-come-lately to the scene all the time. Living in the past idea (Jethro Tull seems to know) Unless something special can be attributed to human sense of awareness that is directly coupled to the now-present of time flow, bypassing the processing circuitry of AI. Some notion of instantaneous, not unlike quantum entanglement, may come into picture

Not sure what integrated and complex definition are Another way of looking at it may be a top-down approach. Starting from human (assumed to have consciousness), going down the supply chain of atoms, where do we threshold, animals, plants, fungus, covid omicron, amoeba, atom, or even a virtual photon that got squeezed out of the Casimir plates. They all seem to be integrated complex system of own at varying level I think panpsychism effectively removes this seemingly arbitrary threshold. Basically its continuous, not discrete of (integrated/complex) mandate. Fundamentally everyone got it

Agreed, "not fully understood", is a given word salad we already know

Not the copy/paste placement of definition, processing of it

Thank you for sharing this. "not fully understood" part is honest, maybe another trait of consciousness

I think the collective assumption is it is emergent from interaction of something, atoms, virtual particles, aether We can consider for example, if chatGPT produces answers to questions almost indistinguishable from human answers, question of its consciousness enters the picture. In addition, If it can define consciousness we individually cannot, does it make it even more conscious ? In the end, if we say consciousness is an emergent property of the physical stuff of something like atoms, it is difficult to see the difference between consciousness of human vs AI. After all they are both complex interactions of fundamental particles. In the case of humans, a few ponds of fundamental particle interaction. In the case of AI, far larger number of particle interactions, involving servers, storage, memory, power. Also AI answer is emergent from human provided training dataset.

Not string theory, nor Marvel multiverse, nor Matrix Holographic universe. Not experimentation nor observation. Extrapolation yes, a grand extrapolation of deterministic behavior against 10 power 82 atoms, based on weighing and measuring a few earth local Following the discussion of chatGPT dataset, plotting the thus far experimental data of theories plotted on simple xyz-t axis of Universe, it's almost invisible, barely not noise. In the discussion of consciousness, these theories "seep in" it seems, not hard observation of bigbang

Then I would guess if training dataset is broad enough, we can have some starting point of a "democratic" definition

It's a big problem in priority if it is as fundamental or fundamental-er than sub-atomic particles or even the quantum foam of the vacuum energy. Besides, how more fundamental can it get when all these grand cosmological theories come from consciousness I think just about everyone has a private definition of what it is, not public scientific one of a text book. Is it still meaningful to try to define it, yes, will we ever get to a complete definition and understanding of it, maybe. At least in philosophical view, we can find some comfort in Camus (the myth of sisyphus), that there is some meaning in such seemingly endless absurdity Wonder what chatGPT would say about what consciousness is

Windows shopping is where it's at, it's fun, and no buyer's remorse over a popular sales item

Consciousness, its lack of meaningful definition, even before the understanding seems to be the big problem. We have it so intimately, yet little is known. It seems to be more of a fuzzy logic domain of right hemisphere in its capacity to elicit big pictures, and less of deductive precise resolution logic domain Real big picture attempt to address this is in Panpsychism line of thinking. Where consciousness is viewed as an inherent part of all things we observe, as much as energy/matter/time permeates everything. BIgbang gave us the SW along with the HW sort of idea. Extension of this goes further to consider consciousness as the prime substrate giving rise to the emergence of atoms, plants, animals, even Kardashians. A fascinating compelling view that escapes objective validation One thing for certain as a male consciousness of me is to sympathize the attraction of a proton to the female electron

yes, how would you define consciousness Couldn't agree more

In QM terms as far as i know, the experiment/and detectors are the observer, as it detects for us, imprinting result for us to review afterwards. We are guilty of being the observer because we set up the experiment to detect one or the other.