2 Principles to question Q,S and R

[chikoka]

ok...

You people beleive that a kettle that reacts to itself overheating is consciosness to a small degree because of its functionality(see bluerap et al)

What is consciosness defined as then? A function where the co domain is the universe and the range is the set of possible reactions that the "function holder" can have towards the co domain.

The kettle has as codomain the universe which ultimatly gives electricity that is chanelled towards it.It then produces heat untill the water boils (the function itself) then the result in the range is that it turns off.
This function is according to you people the consciousness of the kettle.

According to this view of consciossness anything that reacts to something has some conscioussness to it. So the implication we will have to fac is that any subset of the universe is conscious because it can function just like the kettle e.g. (just for dierbet) a stone could be equivalent to the kettle with the codomain being the rest of the universe ultimately moving it (someone throws it) and the motion ( the function itself) cuasing ultimatly the depression of the soil which it lands on , which would be the range.

If we are to say that the kettle is conscioss evn to a small degree we would have to grant sentience to every proper subset of the universe.(since they all react to external stimuli just like the kettle).

Are you prepared to accept that?

[Russell Parr]

ok...

You people beleive that a kettle that reacts to itself overheating is consciosness to a small degree because of its functionality(see bluerap et al)

Actually, what I said is that consciousness can be defined in different ways. There's consciousness in regards to enlightenment (understanding the nature of reality), and normal consciousness (reaction to stimuli) that is found in most people (most of the time), zombies, animals, and sure, even kettles and rocks on a mundane level.

Perhaps you didn't notice that the p-zombie argument utterly fails to demonstrate that consciousness is a phenomena beyond the physical? Which seems to be what you are trying to argue.

[chikoka]

so you belive that every subset of the universe is sentient.anything that exists has an awareness?i hope you realise that the definition of awareness is not anything that exists. You can change the definitions of words but that just makes for confused debate,so i ask you to be honest about the terms you use.

[chikoka]

also since the universe can be split up in a large number of ways it means that all these consciousnesses merge into each other,theres nothing really separating them compromising any notion of identity like the one you have of yourself

[Russell Parr]

Sorry for any confusion that I have caused. Let's settle on one definition on consciousness, that being the ability to understand the nature of reality (enlightenment and Christ consciousness are other expressions for this). Everything else (normal people, zombies, animals, inanimate objects) can be said to be unconscious by contrast.

Therefore, even though normal humans and zombies are able to make calculated decisions, they are no more conscious than animals in comparison to enlightenment.

As for "sufficient reason" as mentioned in you original post, well that's like a kid asking "why" to every answer an adult gives it. But if you must have an answer, look no further than the infinite-ness of cause and effect.

[chikoka]

so we dont have the same meaning for consciousness. Whenever i said consciousness i meant an awareness,so lets leave that term behind and stick with awareness.

So now i ask you if the kettle which stops heating once it starts boiling is in anyway aware.remember reacting tostimuli is not the definition for aware. If you say that it isnt and agree that physically we are just elaborate kettles then how can we be aware?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If.... physically we are just elaborate kettles then how can we be aware?

Occasionally one of these elaborate kettles happens to be extraordinary shiny! And then calls the pot. A pressure thing just as well.

[Russell Parr]

so we dont have the same meaning for consciousness. Whenever i said consciousness i meant an awareness,so lets leave that term behind and stick with awareness.

So now i ask you if the kettle which stops heating once it starts boiling is in anyway aware.remember reacting tostimuli is not the definition for aware. If you say that it isnt and agree that physically we are just elaborate kettles then how can we be aware?

Because the large number of complex processes and senses of the brain is what constitutes what we call an "awareness."

This alludes to an illusion that nearly everyone holds to be true; that human awareness is something more than just an advanced version of the awareness we observe in animals. But as you investigate into this this assumption, there's no evidence for this. Human awareness is as much a product of causation as everything else is in the universe. It possesses no "causeless nature" (free will) that makes it anything special from the ultimate perspective.

[chikoka]

so you beleive that once a kettle gets elaborate enough it gets an awareness?
This is where your theory goes wrong.
We could consider the uber kettle to consist of many simpler kettles with the connections between them also being simpler kettles. In this scenario is there a need for an awareness for the uber kettle to function?

[Russell Parr]

The elaborateness of the brain is called an awareness. In no way am I implying that anything is given an awareness as you keep mistakenly perceiving.

So why don't you give us your theory on where "awareness" comes from?

[chikoka]

again your caught redefining words. Thats not the definition of awareness.

[Russell Parr]

I know what awareness is. The matter at hand is what awareness is dependent on. Do you have any opinions on that?

[chikoka]

so your stance now is that the elaborateness of the brain is not awareness but is what awareness is a function off.or dependant on. I go back to the uber kettle made of many simpler kettles, this time we detach them into simple kettles and put them into different cities. To connect them logicaly we have humans collect the processed info from each simple kettle and move to the city with the next relevant kettle and give it the info to process and so on for all kettles. imagine each kettle as a logic gate that either says yes or no with something
Simmilar to a bimettalic strip.do you think this logical uber kettle has an awareness?

[Russell Parr]

My stance is that the determination of "awareness" is a matter of perspective.

On the surface level, the uber kettle can be said to be aware. The entirety of the processes of the uber kettle collaboratively generates what would fit under the definition of "awareness."

But from the perspective of the functions of the simple kettles that make up the uber kettle, the appearance of an awareness starts to disappear. It turns out that the awareness, that was once perceived as a reality, is actually made up of small simple kettles that operate in relation to the rest of the kettles. It is generally accepted that the off and on switches that make up the processes of a robot does not equate to consciousness. You may be inclined to apply this perspective to the uber kettle, as we normally do with a robot.

Perhaps what you should be asking is "is awareness real?"

[chikoka]

On the surface level, the uber kettle can be said to be aware.

We are then forced back to the situation where every subset of the universe is aware because they can be grouped into processes that constitute your definition of aware.Bringing us back to the situation that caused the confusion we had earlier.

Heres another example.

Imagine we split up the kettle into many kettles .We start with only one , then after it has finished its simple calculation we destroy it and wait a year before building the next relavant kettle, calculate with this new kettle, destroy it and so on and on until we finish.

In this scenario the whole uberkettle did not exist at any one time and there were times when it was not even there completely.
Does it have an awareness.

Note that here the uber kettle only exists as an abstraction so it only exists as a whole (fictitiously) in our minds. Each kettle can be simply thought as a subset of the universe . If you say it is aware then we can build awareness es by simply logicaly grouping processes in the mind from diverse places that have nothing in common . Do you think awarenesses depend on other awareness-es to exist (logicaly group them)?

[chikoka]

I just thought of something:

Does pain have to hurt? Why doesnt it just cause a reaction(eg pulling away from a fire)?
Why did evolution make pain hurt when simply making about the reaction cwould have worked?

[Russell Parr]

We are then forced back to the situation where every subset of the universe is aware because they can be grouped into processes that constitute your definition of aware.Bringing us back to the situation that caused the confusion we had earlier.

Or maybe you just like confusing yourself.

Heres another example.

Imagine we split up the kettle into many kettles .We start with only one , then after it has finished its simple calculation we destroy it and wait a year before building the next relavant kettle, calculate with this new kettle, destroy it and so on and on until we finish.

In this scenario the whole uberkettle did not exist at any one time and there were times when it was not even there completely.
Does it have an awareness.

Kind of like how our bodies replace 98% of its atoms every year?

Note that here the uber kettle only exists as an abstraction so it only exists as a whole (fictitiously) in our minds. Each kettle can be simply thought as a subset of the universe .

The same can be said of our bodies on the atomic level.

If you say it is aware then we can build awareness es by simply logicaly grouping processes in the mind from diverse places that have nothing in common . Do you think awarenesses depend on other awareness-es to exist (logicaly group them)?

Awareness is just a label determined by an observer for convenience. When are you going to get this?

[chikoka]

Quote:
Heres another example.

Imagine we split up the kettle into many kettles .We start with only one , then after it has finished its simple calculation we destroy it and wait a year before building the next relavant kettle, calculate with this new kettle, destroy it and so on and on until we finish.

In this scenario the whole uberkettle did not exist at any one time and there were times when it was not even there completely.
Does it have an awareness.
Kind of like how our bodies replace 98% of its atoms every year?
Quote:

My point exactly.

Quote:
Note that here the uber kettle only exists as an abstraction so it only exists as a whole (fictitiously) in our minds. Each kettle can be simply thought as a subset of the universe .
The same can be said of our bodies on the atomic level.

Again exactly my point.

Quote:
If you say it is aware then we can build awareness es by simply logicaly grouping processes in the mind from diverse places that have nothing in common . Do you think awarenesses depend on other awareness-es to exist (logicaly group them)?
Awareness is just a label determined by an observer for convenience. When are you going to get this?

If youre not going to get the premise of the p-zombie argument how are you ever going to get the conclusion. You are alone in the philosophical world rejecting it though everyone else understands the hypothetical.

[chikoka]

Seriously bluerap; you've put forward 4 or 5 different definitions for awareness in this thread. Its no wonder we can never seem to agree.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Chikoka,

Do you know about the swampman thought experiment? One idea would be that the history of connections and interactions in the causal sense gives way to meanings and mind in general. Which leads to the question what happens if this history or state would be suddenly replicated. Or if that is even a meaningfull activity when the amount of history or causal chain to supply would outweigh the initial purpose, and a whole univere needs to be supplied?

[Russell Parr]

If youre not going to get the premise of the p-zombie argument how are you ever going to get the conclusion. You are alone in the philosophical world rejecting it though everyone else understands the hypothetical.

Seriously bluerap; you've put forward 4 or 5 different definitions for awareness in this thread. Its no wonder we can never seem to agree.

The premise of the p-zombie argument contains the assumption that awareness really exists. My "definitions" are really just examples of how the appearance of awareness is exposed as just an illusion once broken down into simple processes. This applies to human awareness, zombie awareness, or any other awareness you can fathom.

So the p-zombie argument fails to make any point regarding human consciousness due to it's faulty premise.

[chikoka]

If youre not going to get the premise of the p-zombie argument how are you ever going to get the conclusion. You are alone in the philosophical world rejecting it though everyone else understands the hypothetical.

Seriously bluerap; you've put forward 4 or 5 different definitions for awareness in this thread. Its no wonder we can never seem to agree.

The premise of the p-zombie argument contains the assumption that awareness really exists. My "definitions" are really just examples of how the appearance of awareness is exposed as just an illusion once broken down into simple processes. This applies to human awareness, zombie awareness, or any other awareness you can fathom.

So the p-zombie argument fails to make any point regarding human consciousness due to it's faulty premise.

What of "cognito ergo ergo sum". I think therefore i am. Int that knowledge of our own disillusional awareness the first and only (and surest) thing we can know?

[Russell Parr]

It's true that realizing the true nature of awareness doesn't negate the experience of awareness. But it does enhance the accuracy of one's perspective of reality.

[n2xn]

This is my first post, I might come off argumentative, but I think that is healthy for logical discussions.

This conversation is walking on its hands, so I am going to just address specific problems I see from last to first.

•

My "definitions" are really just examples of how the appearance of awareness is exposed as just an illusion once broken down into simple processes

Awareness does exist. For simplicity sake(and because I don't like journeys) I will cut to the point. Look at any math equation. 1+2=3 How does one know it is interacting with two? Now your arguments can go along many lines, but math, firstly doesn't exist purely in human thought, it shapes countless networks of energy with or without our presence. Seeing as how you don't think awareness exists, I am assuming you are coming from an empirical approach. Stars are proof of energy translation across distances. How could this imformation in its most simple, as a single spec of light, light years away, transmit information if nothing is aware(knowing of its presence)? Next argument is nothing that transmits the information is aware it is doing it, which is also why I went straight for math, how do you think information is carried by automatic redundancy? MAth is something I would consider as COMPLETE awareness, and its at the base of physical reality.(and probably all others)

I am going to skip the whole kettle thing.

•

Because the large number of complex processes and senses of the brain is what constitutes what we call an "awareness."

That compromises basic human awareness. Our awareness can be defined as an equation or relationship of power/recurrence. That is the awareness shaping the similarly labeled "reality" of illusion.

•skipping the kettle again, don't let weird annoying experiments hijack intended conversational directions. This kettle thing is just absurd, but it does serve a nice metaphor to the previous point.

•

Perhaps you didn't notice that the p-zombie argument utterly fails to demonstrate that consciousness is a phenomena beyond the physical? Which seems to be what you are trying to argue.

Why the dabble into awareness versus the conscious? is consciousness purely physical or is there something more?

•

im sure you are aware that the brain is in a constant state of flux, water coming in and out of cells, proteins especialy replacing cell membranes, mitochondria and basically everything. Since *everything* in the brain is always changing what of 90 yr old jason is the same as he was when he was 5?

Consciousness wise?

Well consciousness is founded on communication, particularly language. As most other communications doesnt have the ability to "invoke" information from previous experience into the present. In short though, it is still Jason, with a different vocabulary and I suppose since most people allow whimsy to control their thoughts, he also has dim life-experience clouding his inner judgements.

•

Even in that sense it wouldn't be true, because the services a fully-functional computer provides would be part of it, and would distinguish it from a non-functional computer.

A non-functioning computer is a distinguishment from a computer. The emerging ability of all of its components make it a computer. Without one there is none(if its an important piece) Although, a computer is a bad example of emergence because the human element is so heavily responsible for it, down to the bare coding. But it will suffice. Consciousness is a better example of emergence.

•

The problem arises when seeing sentience and "conscious experience" as some mysterious function hidden inside some being. But isn't it obvious it's always part and parcel of its functioning, the senses, the neurons, millions of typical behavioral signs and a specific kind of environment and backdrop it's all taking place in?

Is it not a mysterious function? Like turbulence, or light? ... ... I would say it is caused by many such sir "come" stances(I didnt say that, it censored the "come") and more, but its limits far exceeds any and all of them. There is a point where conscious can become its own mirror and define realities well outside of established or anticipated perogative.

•

What if it had been the other half that had survived?Would he still be the same person? What if they had simply split his brain into two halves and placed each in different bodies? which one would he be?

Left and right brain hemisphere arguments are not subtle in the manner you are thinking. They used to cut shizophrenic's brains down the middle and guess what? they stopped hearing voices. But guess what else? The right brain thought independent of the patients awareness. They are different individuals en total.

•

But if there is no way to tell the difference between us having consciousnesses and us being zombies (or acting like we are consciouss) then from the viewpoint of the universe , they are the same thing.

How would you fake conciousness? We all have actions that we are unaware of, but does that mean they are not concious?

•

Our thoghts do indeed change from one moment to the next , but they still remain *mine* (ours). What is the basis for the *me* in mine?

Are they your thoughts? Or are they the bodies thoughts and you are viewing them? Even if thats not the case, if because you have a thought, does that mean that thought comes from you?(or your soul as that deep undefinable"i" everyone argues about.)

•

The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle which states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common

Well, if you mean by "properties" as "physical properties". then I guess so. Even physical properties break down into transcendental functions interacting with one another at some point though. Physicalism just isn't real.

•

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise.

Well, I never thought about things with that filter before. But in terms for the reasons of consciousness there are many theories on that... simply asking it so broadly won't work when literally book on top of book seeks both its cause and its implied necessity. Emergent Consciousness, C. Lloyd Morgan, is what I am currently reading on the subject. He simplifies other power house thinkers thoughts (spinozaa and others) Trace the history and read up on it.

I do like the sufficient reason idea though. Its an interesting way of looking at things.

[Russell Parr]

My "definitions" are really just examples of how the appearance of awareness is exposed as just an illusion once broken down into simple processes

Awareness does exist. For simplicity sake(and because I don't like journeys) I will cut to the point. Look at any math equation. 1+2=3 How does one know it is interacting with two?

Right, the connection between numbers is an abstract reality that only exists in our minds.

Now your arguments can go along many lines, but math, firstly doesn't exist purely in human thought, it shapes countless networks of energy with or without our presence. Seeing as how you don't think awareness exists, I am assuming you are coming from an empirical approach.

I see it as more of a logical approach.

Stars are proof of energy translation across distances. How could this imformation in its most simple, as a single spec of light, light years away, transmit information if nothing is aware(knowing of its presence)?

The lights emitted from distant galaxies might as well be a simple flashlight in the palm of your hand in comparison to the things that we don't see.

Empirical information can only get us so far. Dark matter is a good example of this.

Next argument is nothing that transmits the information is aware it is doing it, which is also why I went straight for math, how do you think information is carried by automatic redundancy? MAth is something I would consider as COMPLETE awareness, and its at the base of physical reality.(and probably all others)

Yet, math cannot exist without an awareness to observe it.

Math can provide a lot of interesting insights into the nature of things, but it cannot give us any truths regarding more profound things like the nature of existence itself. It may be a brilliant tool for the empirical, but is quite limited in deep philosophy.