Consciousness Always Exists

[nonetheless]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

A black hole, a heap of sand, a bunch of isolated neurons in a dish, they're not integrated. They have no consciousness. But complex systems do.

 

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

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, nonetheless said:

I think panpsychism effectively removes this seemingly arbitrary threshold.  Basically its continuous, not discrete of (integrated/complex) mandate.  Fundamentally everyone got it

Panpsychism certainly removes a threshold, but in doing so it eliminates the border around that aspect of life that people want to study and understand, which is commonly called 'consciousness'. Generally speaking it is sentience and awareness, the ability of an organism to have a sense of 'what it is like to be me'.

Panpsychism and the loose definition of consciousness used by science and the public are not the same thing. Conflating the two only leads to confusion.

[Genady]

7 hours ago, nonetheless said:

human (assumed to have consciousness)

I don't think this assumption is as simple as it appears. Do humans have consciousness when they are unconscious? Under deep anesthesia? One week old? Before they are born? Etc. 

 

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

loose definition of consciousness used by science and the public

Seems to me that consciousness is whatever one wants it to be in a context. Here is an example from science: Understanding Plants - Part I: What a Plant Knows | Coursera

Quote

We’ll explore definitions of memory and consciousness as they relate to plants in asking whether we can say that plants might even be aware of their surroundings.

 

Perhaps, consciousness does not need a general definition because it is not one concept, but a vague word. Its definition depends on its use in a context.

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, Genady said:

Seems to me that consciousness is whatever one wants it to be in a context.

From your link, plants seem to still fall under the loose definition I alluded to, and thus part of what might be subject to research on this topic.

Quote

...scientifically valid look at how plants themselves experience the world—from the colors they see to the sensations they feel.

 

[Genady]

See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed.

I think it is 'see' and 'feel' that are being used loosely here, not 'consciousness'.

[Genady]

Why not all of them?

[zapatos]

Sorry, what do you mean?

Edit: My point was simply that if a tree can sense then it may have a subset of what we consider consciousness in, for example, humans.

Edited January 15, 2023 by zapatos

[Genady]

Why don't you think that "consciousness" is being used loosely there?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why don't you think that "consciousness" is being used loosely there?

Because you said 

"See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed."

Seeing and feeling do not necessarily imply consciousness. They imply senses. So while those terms were a loose definition 'seeing' and 'feeling', they said nothing at all about consciousness.

 

[Genady]

OK. Then I don't know what the point of the quote was,

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Quote

...scientifically valid look at how plants themselves experience the world—from the colors they see to the sensations they feel.

 

but evidently it is immaterial for the discussion.

My understanding of consciousness is as loose as anybody's, but I think that discussing 'consciousness' of something that does not have a brain is rather metaphorical.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

My understanding of consciousness is as loose as anybody's, but I think that discussing 'consciousness' of something that does not have a brain is rather metaphorical.

I don't think a plant is conscious either. But it has traits that may be useful to study when trying to understand consciousness. Similarly, studying planets without life may help us understand life on earth.

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

OK. Then I don't know what the point of the quote was,

The quote came from the course description you cited.

I originally said consciousness had a loose definition. You responded by citing a course and suggesting it was an example of people going so far as to assign consciousness to plants. I then responded by saying it was a course suggesting senses, not consciousness. And then the death spiral of our conversation began...

[Genady]

Yes, it is clear now. Thanks.

[geordief]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

ally speaking it is sentience and awareness, the ability of an organism to have a sense of 'what it is like to be me"

I wonder if that is an absolutely universal trait?Are there any individuals  who do not  have this sense of themselves  as a separate entity?

If those people do not exist then  can we  view it as some kind of an instinctual  reflex  connected to the need to survive as an individual  in the first instance?

Do plants have  mechanisms whereby their survival  is favoured at the expense of others.?

Could that be considered as "awareness of the self"?

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do plants have  mechanisms whereby their survival  is favoured at the expense of others.?

Could that be considered as "awareness of the self"?

Can lack of awareness of others be considered as awareness of the self?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

I wonder if that is an absolutely universal trait?Are there any individuals  who do not  have this sense of themselves  as a separate entity?

 

I don't know whether or not it is a universal trait. It was more meant as a description that gives us a 'pretty good' idea of the boundaries surrounding the concept of consciousness (as I've found 'consciousness' to be generally described). Thus, humans are conscious, rocks are not, and there is likely something in between where there will never be complete agreement on the definition.

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do plants have  mechanisms whereby their survival  is favoured at the expense of others.?

 

 

Quote

“All the trees here, and in every forest that is not too damaged, are connected to each other through underground fungal networks. Trees share water and nutrients through the networks, and also use them to communicate. They send distress signals about drought and disease, for example, or insect attacks, and other trees alter their behavior when they receive these messages.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/

I am not suggesting this implies 'consciousness', but it tells me there seems to be a continuum of traits, and at some point we get a fuzzy line between consciousness and unconsciousness.

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

They send distress signals about drought and disease, for example, or insect attacks, and other trees alter their behavior when they receive these messages.

How do we know that they send these signals rather than the 'signals' being effects of the drought / disease / insect attacks, and trees evolved to respond to them?

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

How do we know that they send these signals rather than the 'signals' being effects of the drought / disease / insect attacks, and trees evolved to respond to them?

If you are implying a conscious decision to warn their neighbors I think we can safely assume that is not the case.

Otherwise, it seems rather similar to other organisms. I see a snake strike at me and jump up in fear. My friends pick up the signal I sent and quickly jump up/scan the area/increase adrenaline flow/whatever. Did I send the signals of danger or were they the effects of a snake attack and people evolved to respond to them?

Edited January 15, 2023 by zapatos

[Genady]

I'd say that you send a signal if the signal has some added elements to it, e.g., you spend an extra energy to make it (I know that this can be difficult to determine) or while jumping you make V sign with the fingers of your right hand and O sign with your left. It is not necessarily conscious but something that evolved because it helps others to detect danger.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

It is not necessarily conscious but something that evolved because it helps others to detect danger.

Would it be more accurate to say that something evolved to read the other's reactions, because it helps to avoid danger? I'm wondering how an organism would develop a trait to benefit someone else.

[Genady]

Just now, zapatos said:

Would it be more accurate to say that something evolved to read the other's reactions, because it helps to avoid danger? I'm wondering how an organism would develop a trait to benefit someone else.

This is exactly my point. 

I took a class on animal behavior about 12 years ago and I remember there were many examples of 'strange' behaviors and the difficulties to figure out their purpose, but at the end they all evolved to benefit the organism itself rather than others.

Signals are picked up, but they are not sent.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

but at the end they all evolved to benefit the organism itself rather than others.

The above seems at odds with the below. Am I misunderstanding?

2 hours ago, Genady said:

something that evolved because it helps others to detect danger.

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Signals are picked up, but they are not sent.

That does seem to make the most sense. I am no expert on Evolution and wonder how individuals develop traits that are beneficial to the group, which of course then makes those traits beneficial for the individual in a round about way.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I'd say that you send a signal if the signal has some added elements to it, e.g., you spend an extra energy to make it (I know that this can be difficult to determine) or while jumping you make V sign with the fingers of your right hand and O sign with your left. It is not necessarily conscious but something that evolved because it helps others to detect danger.

IOW, I would say that a signal is sent if something evolved because it helps others.

But,

2 hours ago, Genady said:

they all evolved to benefit the organism itself rather than others.

Accordingly, I say that signal is not sent.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Genady

[Genady]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

how individuals develop traits that are beneficial to the group, which of course then makes those traits beneficial for the individual in a round about way.

One way, in theory, is if the group whom you benefit consists of your close relatives with whom you share genes. By benefiting them you help them to propagate their genes, some of which are your genes. Thus, you help them to propagate your genes including the genes responsible for this trait.

[nonetheless]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:47 AM, zapatos said:

Panpsychism certainly removes a threshold, but in doing so it eliminates the border around that aspect of life that people want to study and understand, which is commonly called 'consciousness'. Generally speaking it is sentience and awareness, the ability of an organism to have a sense of 'what it is like to be me'.

Panpsychism and the loose definition of consciousness used by science and the public are not the same thing. Conflating the two only leads to confusion.

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