Consciousness

[CharonY]

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Sure, but a basic definition begins to fail as we try to peel back what defines this awareness in various life forms. If you're sticking with the basics, many arguments will apply to humans and ants and possibly plants. Human consciousness can help a person explain to another how an experience made them feel, and I think that's more than just detecting and reacting. There's a level of interpretation that's deep and powerful.

I'm still not sure how I'd define it, but I don't think simplicity is the key.

Fundamentally the question boils down to whether consciousness is binary or a quantitative trait. Considering the range of cognitive abilities of many animals, I am inclined to believe that it is more of a letter and that we are not that unique in that regard. But I think we have already a lot threads discussing this issue?

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Sure, but a basic definition begins to fail as we try to peel back what defines this awareness in various life forms. If you're sticking with the basics, many arguments will apply to humans and ants and possibly plants. Human consciousness can help a person explain to another how an experience made them feel, and I think that's more than just detecting and reacting. There's a level of interpretation that's deep and powerful.

I'm still not sure how I'd define it, but I don't think simplicity is the key.

You seem to be restrictiong consciousness to humans then, or would you say that chimps and dolphins have a version? There's nothing wrong with that view, except that the word consciousness doesn't really cut it, as most people would say that their dog or cat is conscious, obviously at a lower level than a human.  To me, what you describe should be named human consciousness, and the word conscious should apply to everything down the chain, all the way to amoebae and beyond.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

You live in a physical body which is aware of consciousness is my opinion based upon my experience………..so I fail to see how you can separate awareness and consciousness from physical matter.They are totally embroiled together, once again this is my opinion based upon my experiences.

That’s fine, because nothing I’ve said should suggest otherwise. I don’t know how you got from my observation that science tries to remove the human factor from measurement (because that introduces bias) to anything about awareness and being made of physical matter.

 

[Jasper10]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

If I am trying to e.g. measure time (which is nominally my day job) the last thing I want to do is inject the human factor into it. I want to measure the signal from the cloud of atoms, and do that very precisely and repeatedly. Humans being involved generally mucks that up in various ways.

You can substitute in most physics experiments for this. Measure the properties of an electron or other particles, or materials, etc.

I have no idea what "how can human factors be separate from matter" is supposed to mean, or what its connection is to what I previously posted.

What ultimately is the goal of science if the human factor isn’t involved? You introduce bias by choosing to exclude the human factor from your experiments.Personally,I don’t exclude the personal factor from my trail and error psychological experiments.I refuse to be dictated to by the autopilot (machine like) part of my make up that claims that if I can’t define myself and prove that I actually exist by calculation then I don’t exist and don’t matter.Stuff that.I can measure stuff by experience as well as calculation.

[Jasper10]

It is my opinion that if I ask this lifeless piece of meat of a body, do I exist? it hasn’t got a clue.

All it can do is respond in a way that any lifeless machine can by giving an output of:

-you exist,you exist

-you exist,you don’t exist

-you don’t exist,you exist

-you don’t exist,you don’t exist.

In other words, I am fully aware of the duality nature of how this machine responds.

 

[Jasper10]

So it is my opinion that consciousness can be defined as binary outputs and we can have awareness of and thus experience these binary output changes if we have awareness of and can control the “toggling” effect of the 2 consciousness states.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Jasper10

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

What ultimately is the goal of science if the human factor isn’t involved?

To learn how nature behaves. Most of nature falls under the "not human" category.

Quote

You introduce bias by choosing to exclude the human factor from your experiments.

What bias do I introduce?

Quote

Personally,I don’t exclude the personal factor from my trail and error psychological experiments.I refuse to be dictated to by the autopilot (machine like) part of my make up that claims that if I can’t define myself and prove that I actually exist by calculation then I don’t exist and don’t matter.Stuff that.I can measure stuff by experience as well as calculation.

Not all science is psychology. You say you can measure stuff by experience - what of someone with a different amount of experience? Do they come to the same conclusion? If no, isn't that a problem?

[Jasper10]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

To learn how nature behaves. Most of nature falls under the "not human" category.

What bias do I introduce?

Not all science is psychology. You say you can measure stuff by experience - what of someone with a different amount of experience? Do they come to the same conclusion? If no, isn't that a problem?

Item 1. Noted.

Item 2.It is my opinion that because you have chosen or the scientific process has chosen to disregard the human factor then this is a bias.As I have said previously, it is my opinion that consciousness is embroiled within nature.There is nowhere where it isn’t embroiled.

Item 3.From my experience, you can measure stuff by experience ,yes.It is my opinion that different individuals are at various stages of experience but in a lot of cases have no experience at all because they do not apply themselves, simply because that are totally unaware that they even need to apply themselves.In that respect I believe it is a problem, yes.

It is my opinion that if any individual does apply themselves then they will reach the same conclusions as every other individual albeit at varying stages of understanding and experience.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

So it is my opinion that consciousness can be defined as binary outputs and we can have awareness of and thus experience these binary output changes if we have awareness of and can control the “toggling” effect of the 2 consciousness states.

Have you ever tried to wake yourself (and no, I don't mean did you set your alarm clock.)?

You can consciously attempt to become unconscious; but what you can't do, is flip a 'sleep/awake' switch. 

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Item 2.It is my opinion that because you have chosen or the scientific process has chosen to disregard the human factor then this is a bias.

So no actual examples.

Most of physics involves taking data that can't be done with humans - detecting photons, paths of particles, measuring a magnetic field, to name just a few. So introducing humans into such endeavors would compromise the quality of the experiment. If humans do something less well than the devices we use to make measurements, that introduces bias, by definition.

You say otherwise but can't back that up. at. all. 

22 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

As I have said previously, it is my opinion that consciousness is embroiled within nature.There is nowhere where it isn’t embroiled.

And again, I see no connection to what I am discussing, in rebuttal to your claim. I'm pretty sure the photodiode I use to detect a photon signal is not conscious, so there is one example to show the falseness of your claim. I have others, if need be. I can walk through many aspects of an apparatus I have running, and where no humans are involved.

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

It is my opinion that if any individual does apply themselves then they will reach the same conclusions as every other individual albeit at varying stages of understanding and experience.

What stage of understanding are you?

 

[Jasper10]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What stage of understanding are you?

 

Well I am of the opinion that I am neither.

I prefer…….” I am, therefore I think”…..because from my experience “I am” and I have awareness of the 2 consciousness states which I introduce control over.

I am also aware that there are 2 different thought types.One thought type I generate in manual and these are in the  moment thoughts and the other thought types are created by my autopilot which I do engage with which take me out of the moment.I am not a thought…..I generate outward thoughts or I experience inward thoughts.

Both thought types cause an emotional response along with information coming in from the five senses.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Well I am of the opinion that I am neither.

I prefer…….” I am, therefore I think”…..because from my experience “I am” and I have awareness of the 2 consciousness states which I introduce control over.

Are you also simplifying "think" into a meaningless abstraction? All creatures that "are" can "think"?

11 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

I am also aware that there are 2 different thought types.One thought type I generate in manual and these are in the  moment thoughts and the other thought types are created by my autopilot which I do engage with which take me out of the moment.I am not a thought…..I generate outward thoughts or I experience inward thoughts.

In your quest for simplification, you've just made this incredibly more complex and confusing. You have an idea that only makes sense to you.

13 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Both thought types cause an emotional response along with information coming in from the five senses.

Perhaps you believe there are only two types of thoughts because you believe there are only five senses.

 

[Jasper10]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

So no actual examples.

Most of physics involves taking data that can't be done with humans - detecting photons, paths of particles, measuring a magnetic field, to name just a few. So introducing humans into such endeavors would compromise the quality of the experiment. If humans do something less well than the devices we use to make measurements, that introduces bias, by definition.

You say otherwise but can't back that up. at. all. 

And again, I see no connection to what I am discussing, in rebuttal to your claim. I'm pretty sure the photodiode I use to detect a photon signal is not conscious, so there is one example to show the falseness of your claim. I have others, if need be. I can walk through many aspects of an apparatus I have running, and where no humans are involved.

The below is just a query and the views expressed are just my opinion.

So are you saying that you only practice “observer” science or what I would call “spectator” science then rather than “player” science and the “observer” is only consciousness or awareness and has no direct connection or engagement to the experiment/s?

It would be easier for me if you explained whether you have a view on self i.e. do you think that self exists or not?

I do understand that you may not want to commit on a statement either way and other contributors to these discussions may take the same stance because then you and they would then have to definitively prove it either way and we both know that would be impossible for you or them to do this.

However,it would be helpful if you expressed your hopeful belief system because at the end of the day it is also my opinion that that is all you, me or anyone else has on the big questions of do I exist or not?
 

Unless, that is, active experience provides definitive assurances that self “I am” does exist.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you also simplifying "think" into a meaningless abstraction? All creatures that "are" can "think"?

In your quest for simplification, you've just made this incredibly more complex and confusing. You have an idea that only makes sense to you.

Perhaps you believe there are only two types of thoughts because you believe there are only five senses.

 

I am of the opinion that “I am” therefore I am separate from thoughts.

I appreciate that it only makes sense to me and the reason it does make sense to me is because I actively experience it.I am of the opinion that it would makes sense to you as well hopefully.

I experience 2 types of thoughts that make sense to me (inward and outward).I am also only aware of 5 senses.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

The below is just a query and the views expressed are just my opinion.

So are you saying that you only practice “observer” science or what I would call “spectator” science then rather than “player” science and the “observer” is only consciousness or awareness and has no direct connection or engagement to the experiment/s?

I measure the states of laser-cooled atoms and any kind of outside perturbation affects the results, so there is no outside direct connection or "engagement" with the atoms since that would screw up the results. This is true of a lot of physics; the observer effect is a known phenomenon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Any observation that is unnecessary is to be avoided, since it is known that it will alter the results.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Jasper10 said:

I appreciate that it only makes sense to me and the reason it does make sense to me is because I actively experience it.

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

[Jasper10]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

Phi, I have not made it up.Control and Experience is a factor.

The below is just my opinion:

 “player” science and philosophy rather than “spectator” science and philosophy takes things to the next level.

Scientist don’t want to become part of their own experiments.

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

Can I ask Phi, are you into meditation,particularly inward only meditation?

This is just my opinion:

“Inward” only meditation like Buddhism is a consciously biased meditative practice.

What do I mean by this?

As far as consciousness is concerned the individual deliberately goes into the “out of the moment” consciousness state which is one of the two consciousness states and then proceeds to divide (create dualism) within this state as part of their knowledge searchings.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Jasper10

[NTuft]

On 6/15/2022 at 10:20 PM, Jasper10 said:

It is my opinion that there are only 2 consciousness states[...]

It is my opinion that there are four.

[Jasper10]

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

It is my opinion that there are four.

4 you can control?

[NTuft]

2 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

4 you can control?

control is... a far aim.

Quote

 

"The human being is a very complicated machine and has to be studied as a
machine. We realize that in order to control any kind of machine, such as a motor car
or a railway engine, we should first have to learn. We cannot control these machines
instinctively, but for some reason we think that ordinary instinct is sufficient to control
the human machine, although it is so much more complicated. This is one of the first
wrong assumptions: we do not realize that we have to learn, that control is a question
of knowledge and skill."
...
"Right understanding requires a right attitude. We must understand that we have no
control, that we are machines, that everything happens to us. But simply speaking
about it does not change these facts. To cease being mechanical requires something
else, and, first of all, it requires a change of attitude One thing over which we have a
certain control is our attitudes—attitudes towards knowledge, towards the system,
towards work, towards self-study, towards friends and so on We must understand that
we cannot 'do', but we can change our attitudes. 
...
"The 'I' or combination of 'I's in control is
active; the 'I's which are controlled or driven are passive. Understand it quite simply.
This diagram represents a state"...
...
"It changed itself; you did not do even that. In life one has no control, but in the
work one can acquire control. In the work there can be an escape from this state where
we can do nothing and things 'happen'. Without the work there is no escape.
A certain illusion of control is provided in life by ordinary education, but if
circumstances change it all disappears."
...
...instruments for acquiring knowledge only if you can control them. And what does
control mean? It means not admitting identification and considering. Control is the
second step, study is the first step.
...
" One can try, but it is necessary to have constant change and variation and choose
things that will awake one. Otherwise we can awake for a second, decide to keep
awake and imagine we are awake when we are really doing all this in a dream, with
dream alarms. This is why constant control is necessary, and constant verification as
to whether they really awake one or simply create new dreams...

--Fragments from an unknown teacher

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by NTuft

[Jasper10]

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

control is... a far aim.

 

Interesting NTuft…are you flexible and open minded enough to accept that control is a vital ingredient then? 

It is my opinion that control is not as far an aim as you might think.

It is my opinion that we need to learn control by trail and error.It doesn’t come naturally or easy because we are so conditioned  to being controlled by the machine or autopilot part of our nature.

I have experiential awareness that I exercise control over binary consciousness but it is hard work.You do have to learn how to practically “fly the plane” so to speak.

It’s a bit like learning how to ride a bike.You try, you fail,you learn until you learn enough from from your failures to succeed.

 

 

 

[J.Merrill]

This doesn't make any since at all not from philosophical standpoint or practical scientific one. I'm not sure you quite understand the diffrence between Awareness/consciousness , Intelligence and Self-Consciousness . One just cant turn it on and off, not even on accident. The brain wouldn't function well with out our form of consciousness we as humans have today, and its only ascending higher over time. 

We as humans are the most conscious species on Earth.

We share similarities with animals however there are huge differences between the level of consciousness.

Take for example an Ant, and an Ant Eater, the ant doesn't understand its food for the ant eater, and its also highly unlikely the Ant Eater understands fully and is conscious that Ants are food for it. As Food is part of the human language we have given things we eat a broad name called Food.  Most things we safely consume are considered Food or Drinks. The Ant Eater just eats, but does it really know why its doing so? Has it any idea ants tasty nasty? Does it think they taste good? Perhaps it can know fruits taste much better than ants? As stated before Highly unlikely as this would require a high level of consciousness most ^{(NOT ALL)} animals don't have. 

1.) Intelligence

Animals are intelligent just like humans are intelligent.

It takes Intelligence to be aware/ conscious. But just because something is intelligent doesn't mean its conscious. For example Calculators and Computers are pretty intelligent right? But they are not conscious or aware of the space they occupy. And the environment around them.

 

2.) Awareness/ consciousness

Most living things ^{(NOT ALL)} with a small level of intelligent and a simple form of consciousness are aware of things like danger and food, and they can feel pain they are aware something hurts if they brake a bone.

We as humans are aware visually, physically, and emotionally. We are conscious, however our level of consciousness is far more complex then just awareness, almost every living organism is aware in some sense. Like cats are aware, of things like danger and some new studies show they are capable of emotion to a small degree. But does this mean they are as conscious as us? The answer is no.

3.) Self Awareness/Self Conscious 

Knowing that you are human and are different from other species around you is only a small portion of the pie. Knowing that we are on a giant sphere floating somewhere in space is also another small portion of the pie. What about Language, its a necessary element as consciousness increases to a higher level of Self-Consciousness. Language also requires thought even if you don't think long about what you say, you are consciously thinking before you speak. Animals communicate through neurological stimulation and basic instinct, so no " Cats hissing or Dogs barking/ growling are not forms of animals language" as these don't require thought. It's like you blinking if someone flinches at you. It was not you telling yourself to blink. It's a neurological stimulated response, in your brain that does this. Stimulated responses can also change based on adaptation, take for example a child that may have been abused, raising your hand up might trigger a response of them cowering. But I can raise my hand around my kids all day long and they don't even flinch. 

 

Almost Every living thing has a form of consciousness some of it is a simple as (ONLY) neurological triggers/stimulations something with a consciousness like this would likely be parasites maybe bacteria or an ant?

 

There are a lot of things I left out that has to do with consciousness, but humans don't just "TOGGLE" On and Off forms of consciousness. Something is either conscious or not. And Self-Conscious is completely different.

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.Merrill

[NTuft]

2 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

I have experiential awareness that I exercise control over binary consciousness but it is hard work.You do have to learn how to practically “fly the plane” so to speak.

i is dissociating and plane full of other passengers.

[Jasper10]

2 hours ago, NTuft said:

i is dissociating and plane full of other passengers.

Well the plane I’m grappling to fly in manual has no passengers and I’ve just looked out of the window and can see many other similar planes whose pilots are fast asleep at the cockpit because their planes are flying  on autopilot.

[Jasper10]

14 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

This doesn't make any since at all not from philosophical standpoint or practical scientific one. I'm not sure you quite understand the diffrence between Awareness/consciousness , Intelligence and Self-Consciousness . One just cant turn it on and off, not even on accident. The brain wouldn't function well with out our form of consciousness we as humans have today, and its only ascending higher over time. 

We as humans are the most conscious species on Earth.

We share similarities with animals however there are huge differences between the level of consciousness.

Take for example an Ant, and an Ant Eater, the ant doesn't understand its food for the ant eater, and its also highly unlikely the Ant Eater understands fully and is conscious that Ants are food for it. As Food is part of the human language we have given things we eat a broad name called Food.  Most things we safely consume are considered Food or Drinks. The Ant Eater just eats, but does it really know why its doing so? Has it any idea ants tasty nasty? Does it think they taste good? Perhaps it can know fruits taste much better than ants? As stated before Highly unlikely as this would require a high level of consciousness most ^{(NOT ALL)} animals don't have. 

1.) Intelligence

Animals are intelligent just like humans are intelligent.

It takes Intelligence to be aware/ conscious. But just because something is intelligent doesn't mean its conscious. For example Calculators and Computers are pretty intelligent right? But they are not conscious or aware of the space they occupy. And the environment around them.

 

2.) Awareness/ consciousness

Most living things ^{(NOT ALL)} with a small level of intelligent and a simple form of consciousness are aware of things like danger and food, and they can feel pain they are aware something hurts if they brake a bone.

We as humans are aware visually, physically, and emotionally. We are conscious, however our level of consciousness is far more complex then just awareness, almost every living organism is aware in some sense. Like cats are aware, of things like danger and some new studies show they are capable of emotion to a small degree. But does this mean they are as conscious as us? The answer is no.

3.) Self Awareness/Self Conscious 

Knowing that you are human and are different from other species around you is only a small portion of the pie. Knowing that we are on a giant sphere floating somewhere in space is also another small portion of the pie. What about Language, its a necessary element as consciousness increases to a higher level of Self-Consciousness. Language also requires thought even if you don't think long about what you say, you are consciously thinking before you speak. Animals communicate through neurological stimulation and basic instinct, so no " Cats hissing or Dogs barking/ growling are not forms of animals language" as these don't require thought. It's like you blinking if someone flinches at you. It was not you telling yourself to blink. It's a neurological stimulated response, in your brain that does this. Stimulated responses can also change based on adaptation, take for example a child that may have been abused, raising your hand up might trigger a response of them cowering. But I can raise my hand around my kids all day long and they don't even flinch. 

 

Almost Every living thing has a form of consciousness some of it is a simple as (ONLY) neurological triggers/stimulations something with a consciousness like this would likely be parasites maybe bacteria or an ant?

 

There are a lot of things I left out that has to do with consciousness, but humans don't just "TOGGLE" On and Off forms of consciousness. Something is either conscious or not. And Self-Conscious is completely different.

I know from experience that AWARENESS and CONSCIOUSNESS are completely different things.

You can be AWARE that you are “not in the moment” or “not in synch”  and bring yourself back “into the moment” or “back in synch” any time you like.You can exercise that control over consciousness.

It is my opinion that something needs to be aware or not aware and that something is the “I am” which is a PRESENCE.

So it is the “I am” that has awareness and exercises consciousness control.