That seems.... unlikely. Or at least it seems un-befitting. Although you having time to do all these videos and being up at uhhhhh.... nvm. It's 2am here. I suppose that it's like 7am in Britain. Anyway, ya I was thinking, philosophy or something. Shows what I know.
Well, to guess I think human languages as opposed to say, alien languages, might tend to be a bit more color oriented in our metaphors than languages in general might be. Among animals, we're a very visual species. If there were machine intelligences, or if there are going to be, they might talk about realms of existence that are very real to them that have nothing to do with us, realms that are the output of say, economic performance indexes, that to them would be sense-like and 'real'.
I guess I'm saying that if they are conscious it's not in the same way that humans are. I think we sometimes think of animals as less conscious; as having the same consciousness as ourselves but in smaller amounts, and I can't go along with that. There isn't some singular 'consciousness in general' that I have greater access to than they do, but there may well be different particular kinds of consciousness.
Prof Anton also touched on this notion of consciousness in general. Is it ontological or semiological. The old realism-nominalism debate.
I tend to realism, in general.
But in this matter of consciousness there is the possibility that one consciousness looks through the eyes of all sentients; in which case the differences are organic; different kinds of eyes.
But I dont know.
I do think there is good testimonial evidence that conscious awareness may be independent of physical matter.
Hi. I consider the reports of near death experiences and out of body experiences to be good testimonial evidence - but not proof - that conscious awareness is not a product of material processes.
But then you would believe that the experience is actually taking place outside of the body. It might as well be experienced inside the brain, like a dream. Could you refer to some good research on that topic?
Wikipedia has wideranging articles on OBE and NDE with plenty of references. Skeptics have done an adequate job debunking the "mysterious" aspects of these. There is NO robust (enough to stand up under scrutiny) evidence IMHO to support the notion that consciousness functions anywhere, anyhow, apart from a functioning nervous system.
Yes there are elements in many of the accounts that indicate the experience is taking place outside or independently of the body and its senses. That's why I regard it as good testimonial evidence.
A good place to begin is "Life After Life" by Raymond Moody. It's on Amazon; there are 80 reviews which will give some idea of its contents.
There is something "looking through the eyes" of many people: (human) civilization. This is real and explosively expanding its knowledge base. There are clearly observable physical information channels in the "civilized" network, but not, to my knowledge, in the "all sentients" case. The latter is therefore in the realm of pure imagination (for me, so far).
Is every feedback system "sentient"? Are Thermostats? Mars Rovers? Bacteria?
Well bacteria are negative entropy or living systems and mars rovers are positive entropy or inanimate systems. Bacteria do seem to have a minimal awareness. Is it minimal consciousness? I dont know; but it is different to mars rovers.
I don't understand your idea of civilisation as a something that can look through the eyes of people. Are you saying C is a conscious entity itself? Is C not an effect or product of human consciousness?
I'm gonna say that there IS some singular 'consciousness in general'. We often mistake consciousness for our sensory input/output and self-consciousness, but it actually is something that is intertwined with those perceptions we have. Consciousness itself is present in everything in that sense and not greater or lesser in anything.
If you lean toward "different particular kinds of consciousness", why oppose the notion of "evolution of consciousness"; at least in the Darwinian sense of "evolution"?
Actually, the word "evolution", rooted in rolling-out or unrolling, is dangerously misleading applied to biology as it implies the manifesting of something latent and preordained (and more complex, more complete, "better", even). Many appear seduced by these implications.
There is an "Über-Bewustsein" already present on earth in the form of human civilization. In fact, one if its many projects is the study of human consciousness.
Can (human) civilization be said to be "conscious"? How compare the colony with the ant? The network with the node? What "it" is-like-to-be "it" can't be known by "us", except "holographically": i.e. a (very) limited range of perspectives into a higher-dimensional world.
Human civilization acts on a higher level than we.
Although originally instigated by humans, machine language exists and is, in fact, mostly generated by machines. Especially what is literally so named.
Not to mention "bots" which may subvert computers "owned and operated by" humans. In principle, bots can write improved bots by observing the obstacles they encounter, analyze them and "try out" revised code. Just like (conscious) people.
What is the "ultimate" Turing Test?
How do we know that anyone (else) or any thing is "conscious"?
excellent excellent excellent video.
biggs156 2 years ago
What do you teach?
qwertyzz7 2 years ago
Theatre
conferencereport 2 years ago
That seems.... unlikely. Or at least it seems un-befitting. Although you having time to do all these videos and being up at uhhhhh.... nvm. It's 2am here. I suppose that it's like 7am in Britain. Anyway, ya I was thinking, philosophy or something. Shows what I know.
qwertyzz7 2 years ago
Interesting insight, if you switch statements about language into statements about consciousness some of them still hold true.
Nice bit of abstract pattern recognition.
I'm looking for useful comments to help me with my series on youtube:
watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4
zarkoff45 2 years ago
Well, to guess I think human languages as opposed to say, alien languages, might tend to be a bit more color oriented in our metaphors than languages in general might be. Among animals, we're a very visual species. If there were machine intelligences, or if there are going to be, they might talk about realms of existence that are very real to them that have nothing to do with us, realms that are the output of say, economic performance indexes, that to them would be sense-like and 'real'.
Haengma 2 years ago
Surely you cannot mean to say that your dogs are not conscious...?
Dolphins have been shown to have language...in that they can relate specific information to each other via sound.
Drastam 2 years ago
I guess I'm saying that if they are conscious it's not in the same way that humans are. I think we sometimes think of animals as less conscious; as having the same consciousness as ourselves but in smaller amounts, and I can't go along with that. There isn't some singular 'consciousness in general' that I have greater access to than they do, but there may well be different particular kinds of consciousness.
conferencereport 2 years ago
Prof Anton also touched on this notion of consciousness in general. Is it ontological or semiological. The old realism-nominalism debate.
I tend to realism, in general.
But in this matter of consciousness there is the possibility that one consciousness looks through the eyes of all sentients; in which case the differences are organic; different kinds of eyes.
But I dont know.
I do think there is good testimonial evidence that conscious awareness may be independent of physical matter.
Drastam 2 years ago
@ Drastam:
I'm curious about that good testimonial evidence that you're talking about.
jaikook 2 years ago
Hi. I consider the reports of near death experiences and out of body experiences to be good testimonial evidence - but not proof - that conscious awareness is not a product of material processes.
Drastam 2 years ago
But then you would believe that the experience is actually taking place outside of the body. It might as well be experienced inside the brain, like a dream. Could you refer to some good research on that topic?
jaikook 2 years ago
@jaikook
Wikipedia has wideranging articles on OBE and NDE with plenty of references. Skeptics have done an adequate job debunking the "mysterious" aspects of these. There is NO robust (enough to stand up under scrutiny) evidence IMHO to support the notion that consciousness functions anywhere, anyhow, apart from a functioning nervous system.
prhughes0 2 years ago
Yes there are elements in many of the accounts that indicate the experience is taking place outside or independently of the body and its senses. That's why I regard it as good testimonial evidence.
A good place to begin is "Life After Life" by Raymond Moody. It's on Amazon; there are 80 reviews which will give some idea of its contents.
There is also alot of material on the web.
Drastam 2 years ago
@ Drastam:
There is something "looking through the eyes" of many people: (human) civilization. This is real and explosively expanding its knowledge base. There are clearly observable physical information channels in the "civilized" network, but not, to my knowledge, in the "all sentients" case. The latter is therefore in the realm of pure imagination (for me, so far).
Is every feedback system "sentient"? Are Thermostats? Mars Rovers? Bacteria?
Am also curious about that evidence.
think
p
prhughes0 2 years ago
Hi prhughes0.
Well bacteria are negative entropy or living systems and mars rovers are positive entropy or inanimate systems. Bacteria do seem to have a minimal awareness. Is it minimal consciousness? I dont know; but it is different to mars rovers.
I don't understand your idea of civilisation as a something that can look through the eyes of people. Are you saying C is a conscious entity itself? Is C not an effect or product of human consciousness?
Drastam 2 years ago
I'm gonna say that there IS some singular 'consciousness in general'. We often mistake consciousness for our sensory input/output and self-consciousness, but it actually is something that is intertwined with those perceptions we have. Consciousness itself is present in everything in that sense and not greater or lesser in anything.
jaikook 2 years ago
If you lean toward "different particular kinds of consciousness", why oppose the notion of "evolution of consciousness"; at least in the Darwinian sense of "evolution"?
Actually, the word "evolution", rooted in rolling-out or unrolling, is dangerously misleading applied to biology as it implies the manifesting of something latent and preordained (and more complex, more complete, "better", even). Many appear seduced by these implications.
prhughes0 2 years ago
There is an "Über-Bewustsein" already present on earth in the form of human civilization. In fact, one if its many projects is the study of human consciousness.
Can (human) civilization be said to be "conscious"? How compare the colony with the ant? The network with the node? What "it" is-like-to-be "it" can't be known by "us", except "holographically": i.e. a (very) limited range of perspectives into a higher-dimensional world.
Human civilization acts on a higher level than we.
colony-ant.
prhughes0 2 years ago
Although originally instigated by humans, machine language exists and is, in fact, mostly generated by machines. Especially what is literally so named.
Not to mention "bots" which may subvert computers "owned and operated by" humans. In principle, bots can write improved bots by observing the obstacles they encounter, analyze them and "try out" revised code. Just like (conscious) people.
What is the "ultimate" Turing Test?
How do we know that anyone (else) or any thing is "conscious"?
best,
p
prhughes0 2 years ago