Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

[Ranvier]

Thank you Burning ghost

I was beginning to think that every time I'll put a band-aid on someone, people will call me a veterinarian...lol
I think some people spend too much time with computers... go out, have fun, meet a girl... one may actually bring a different perspective on things, such as consciousness.

[Papus79]

We are born with innate "knowledge". We are not blank slates.

We are nothing like silicon computers. It is a common analogy, but a limited one. Our brain are more like ecological systems than lap-tops. The forced use of analogies like "software" and "hardware" seems to have caused a great deal of confusion over time IMO.

TY - the ecological systems analogy is a good one.

I kind of see where you are coming from with the definition. My issue would be that you're assuming the brain is a cluster of separate brains functioning as a unity.

I might not necessarily be making that assertion in that I avoided getting into the nuts and bolts of how things like neurological fame work but if there is a controversial stance in what I said it might be this: that consciousness is capable of being present at granular levels and from those granular levels it looks very aware and also very mechanical/inhuman. This is the kind of thing that can also be traumatic to a person inexperienced with, say, something like LSD who takes too much and watches it all go to pieces and their own substance becomes utterly fractured and foreign - and they realize that it's that stacking, the coping mechanisms, complex socialization, etc. that 'humanizes' consciousness. It's considering those little inhuman bits that has me interested.

The most intriguing thing for me is how consciousness gives us a sense of 'authorship', and how this sense of 'authorship' feeds back into the whole system at large (and to what extent?) - so my comment here is just a simple warning away from assuming that neural systems are acting 'rationally'/'logically' under this thing we feel and know now, this living feeling consciousness that I am and you are.

I'd add to that as well - I'm definitely not raising the specter of free will. I think the sense of agency in consciousness is real, just as there are times where consciousness needs little or no effort expended to make a decision whereas at other times the situation is that critical (think action/suspense/horror scenarios) that consciousness and brain processing are being strained to their limit over a decision to be made. Regardless I do think that consciousness acts as a vector map for possible solutions, whether it is fields themselves or emergent patterns of emerged fields, or whether its something that feels so identical to that to be indistinguishable without medical tests being devised that can confirm or deny the suggestion.

You may find it interesting to study differences in hemispheres. If you look at some studies on birds (whose visual hemispheres are very much separated compared to humans) you'll see some fascinating insights into the two quite opposing views of the world given. This is why I would err away from saying what is deemed "optimal" for each system.

TY - I'll take a look at that and see if I can wring out something helpful.

And again, CONSCIOUSNESS is fairly well defined. We all have a very obvious understanding of it! The problem neuroscience has is applying the subjective feeling to scientific data. In some respects we have to accept that science helps us understand physical functions and patterns rather than explaining the "what" and "why". Science says "how", as best it can, and dares go no further (that is the job of the erratic human individual!)

I could be wrong but it sounds like we have a provisional definition, ie. something that says 'this is the territory its in' rather than 'this is what it is'. I think that's where I'm interested in seeing if that territory map can be shrunk further, and I tend to think that part of that process is raising questions or hypothetical definitions that - even if not 100% correct - seem to lay out a kind of unified behavior that get our minds working in the right way. That said I know that there are some researchers considering similar lines of thought, Penrose and Hameroff particularly came to mind, and if they are hoping that they'll have apparatus in the next few years (as Penrose suggested in a recent interview) that will allow inspection of the brain for byproducts of such activities.

[RJG]

Consciousness is the singular experience of recognition, made possible by memory. (...that's it!!)

Consciousness is the unified interpretive force of the brain. What that means we don't really know.

If "we don’t really know" what it means, then WHY believe this is the definition of consciousness?

It is not simply a case of "memory". We have a capacity to understand and our understanding shapes, and is shaped by, the environment.

Is it possible to do this “understanding” without recognition? ...and does this recognition require 'memory'?

We don't learn to see faces, we are born with the capacity to recognize faces, and to understand things in a spatial way.

Is it possible to do this “recognizing” without memory?

[Steve3007]

It's sometimes interesting to look at how the conversation has progressed by looking at the input at the start of a page and the output at the end, and then try to work out what might have happened in between. In this case, page one started with this:

consciousness (here defined) - a set of probability fields, each with its own contingent requirements, whose value alignments overlap to achieve outcomes deemed optimal by the overlapping set in common.

and ended with this:

note: We are absolutely not "squirrel machines". Next you'll all be saying a squirrel is the same as a worm. Common features are merely common features.

So it started with what appears to me some gobbledygook about probability fields and ended, for some reason, with the need to deny that humans are squirrels. I think, until I observe it, what goes between must be some kind of superposition of all possible arguments.

[The Beast]

IT must be. The squirrels lack the uncanny capacity to push buttons. There is an unquestionable DNA/Evolution two-way dialog. If this is established, then: Is there a metaphysical component? If there is no soul, the statement. “Sir, you have no honor” should not be of any consequence. Neither, the idea of justice or any other platonic or neo-platonic philosophies. What can be said about bullies? They are experts of the flight or fight Amygdala. The flight has different areas of distribution (blood flow denial). I could go ahead with Steve’s conclusion to venture that spasticity is caused by a genetic conditioning done by the Amygdala. But, there is a soul. So, if the spastic survives then the wealth of justice is one of wisdom...maybe. Can the hyena overcome to be what is/was a birth right given by the culture or the Hyena’s way of life? It must be the idea of semantics to relate Conscience with Consciousness. Is there a reward for aligning oneself with a bully despite the truth ()…” to run with the big boys… must be” ?

[Atreyu]

Saying "Consciousness is...." is always a basic error. Consciousness cannot be defined using the products of consciousness itself. The definition will always be, and has to be, something else besides consciousness itself.

If 'y' is the result of F(x), then 'y' cannot actually be F(x). The function is resolved to 'y' after it is executed. This implies that 'y' cannot be said to be equivalent to F(x), i.e. the definition of it. In this case the "="" symbol is misleading. 'F(x) = y' does not mean that they are really equal to each other. Rather, it just means that 'y' is the result of F(x), i.e. they are equivalent in value (only). It in no way means that they are absolutely equivalent, i.e. the same thing. x can = 5, and y can = 5, but this doesn't mean that x and y are exactly the same thing. They merely have the same value. But 'x' is still 'x', and 'y' is still 'y'. Their difference merely lies in something else besides their mathematical value.

The equation '5+3 = 8' and the equation '4*2 = 8' are two different equations. They merely are conceived to have the same mathematical value.

Consciousness cannot be a "set of probability fields", because the idea of a "probability field" is just another product of consciousness. Consciousness is that which is asserting that "probability fields" exist, whatever that may be.

So nothing that can be verbalized could be said to be consciousness, because anything for which a word has been invented is already a product of consciousness, not consciousness itself. And this shows the difficulty, the virtual impossibility, of defining consciousness. For consciousness cannot define itself until it escapes its own boundaries, comes outside of itself, for only then can it even see, let alone define, what it really is. Until it goes outside of its own boundaries, everything it perceives and cognizes will simply be a reflection if itself, much like you can only see a reflection of yourself when you look in a mirror. The reflection is not really you, it's only a image of you. Similarly, anything that can be verbalized will only be reflection of consciousness, not the thing-in-itself.

So consciousness cannot be reduced to awareness, probability fields, qualia, information, data, spirit, neurons, etc, or anything else. Consciousness is that which asserts that it is those other things. It cannot actually be the same thing it imagines itself to be....

[Ranvier]

Atreyu

You use different words that I would have used but I think it's much better said than I could achieve. Simple and cogent.

[RJG]

So consciousness cannot be reduced to awareness, probability fields, qualia, information, data, spirit, neurons, etc, or anything else. Consciousness is that which asserts that it is those other things. It cannot actually be the same thing it imagines itself to be....

Atreyu, you have logically pointed out that -- consciousness cannot be the object-of-consciousness! Nicely done. I fully agree.

So, now the question is, what is it that is NOT an object-of-consciousness, that then could accurately define consciousness? There is only ONE answer. ...and that is the 'experience' of recognition.

But before you (or anyone) jumps me for my usage of the word 'experience', let me clarify. When I say 'experience', I am NOT meaning 'conscious experience'. Our bodies experience lots of things, some of which we 'knowingly' (consciously) experience, and some bodily experiences (reactions) that we are never conscious of.

Now re-look at my definition to see if it falls in line with your understanding.

• Consciousness is the 'experience' of recognition, made possible by memory.

"Recognition" is our sole means/mechanism of converting the unconscious-to-the-conscious.

Without recognition, there can be no consciousness. Without memory, there can be no recognition.

[Ranvier]

RJG

So, a computer with facial recognition software has consciousness?
What about imagination, feelings such a love or compassion, ability to ask questions through observation... one may look at Picasso a thousand times and still not "recognize" anything. Is that a memory failure or just brain unconscious malfunction to "recognize" into consciousness? Where is the "I" of self consciousness located? In DNA? Because it's not in the memory of a child, who becomes embarrassed for the first time.

[RJG]

So, a computer with facial recognition software has consciousness?

Isn’t “facial recognition” just the ‘name’ of a software program that executes commands, ...it doesn’t really mean that a computer can actually ‘experience’ recognition, right?

What about imagination, feelings such a love or compassion, ability to ask questions through observation…

What about ‘em?

...one may look at Picasso a thousand times and still not "recognize" anything. Is that a memory failure or just brain unconscious malfunction to "recognize" into consciousness?

Yeah, I have the same problem. I look at Chinese words, and can’t 'recognize' anything it says.

Where is the "I" of self consciousness located?

Are you implying that the "self" can experience itself? Self-awareness is not logically possible.

In DNA? Because it's not in the memory of a child, who becomes embarrassed for the first time.

"Embarrassment" is just an experience; a bodily reaction.

[Papus79]

I'd have to say that I share in some of the criticisms here that a computer, at least the way we build them right now, might be too rigidly structured to have much of a conscious I experience, or if it did it would be a very sharp, narrow, and limited band probably too alien for us to make sense of.

The idea of dynamic systems needing to self-regulate actually makes concepts like creativity, imagination, etc.. important because they're survival and prosperity tools. It seems like such pursuits would only be meaningful if there were enough flexibility in the system for habits or behaviors to etch new paths or restructure the physical substrate of that system. While I do see where people are coming up with ways to make software that makes art and the like it seems like one thing for something to have the right algorithms to carry out the task, likely without even understanding it, vs. having a deep intrinsic relationship with that endeavor.

[Atreyu]

• Consciousness is the 'experience' of recognition, made possible by memory.

"Recognition" is our sole means/mechanism of converting the unconscious-to-the-conscious.

Without recognition, there can be no consciousness. Without memory, there can be no recognition.

I agree with this line of reasoning. At least it explains the beginning of consciousness, if not consciousness proper. Certainly, recognition and memory are necessary prerequisites for consciousness. A pretty good job here.

But, unfortunately, it's still not complete, because consciousness implies even more than simple memory and recognition. But I admit your definition is definitely a step in the right direction. Your line of thinking here is quite apropos.

[Burning ghost]

RJG -

You are just playing the game of shifting definitions to suit your needs so you can "win". BUT, yes, a babies with absolutely no visual sensory knowledge of a face can, and do, recognize faces (and facial expressions) when born. So they don't need to recall any memory and cannot given that they have no memory of faces.

Which means you are wrong (as per usual).

Note: No more replies directed in your direction until you say something different (meaning not parroting that same crap you've been parroting for .... 5 years is it?

Atreyu -

Saying "Consciousness is...." is always a basic error.

I guess the people who wrote my neuroscience text books are in error then, as well as the entire human race being aware of what it means too. Although, as with many words, there are subtle differences of context due of technical and colloquial uses.

Consciousness is that which we experience as waking life or during a dream-state. Consciousness goes during anesthesia, a dreamless sleep or with death.

Part of neuroscience looks at the physical processes that correlate to the phenomena of consciousness.

That said, you touch on the conundrum of how much use these terms are. I am not willing to simply regard their use as so limited as not to be of use at all. The fact that you can present the problem of the term itself shows the use of having a common language that we can all contribute to and explore, and even resolve, the problems of life.

I would say NOT saying what you mean by "consciousness" is the bigger error. Note how he simply says "memory" without going into a specific details about the many different types of memory processes that go on in the brain.

[RJG]

Burning Ghost, why all the hostility?

If you disagree with something I've said, then please quote my actual words that you disagree with and make your case. That's how it works here. Please keep the condescending remarks to yourself.

[Burning ghost]

Burning Ghost, why all the hostility?

If you disagree with something I've said, then please quote my actual words that you disagree with and make your case. That's how it works here. Please keep the condescending remarks to yourself.

You know who I am (Badgerjelly). Just stating facts, not being hostile.

It is not a case of me "quoting" you. You just parrot the same thing over and over without clarity or specifics. We've been engaged in this exchange for 4-5 years now on and off. It is futile if you simple do not put in any effort to study anything.

You are clearly interested enough but you lack any real dedication to the subject matter. That is not condescending just a matter of fact you yourself have confessed to me on a couple of occasions in the past.

If you have been studying recently then give some more depth to your position in terms of "memory". Such as defining the different types of memory you're talking about (eg. implicit, explicit, working memory, short/long term, etc.,.)

I admit it is difficult to be precise enough with language and a certain amount of leeway is required in some readings. Nothing anyone writes is flawless. If you are saying "recognize" and "memory" then specific exactly what you are referring to. When we get into close investigations of this or that subject it requires us to refine our terms and use them specifically rather than have them mean different things in different contexts (that is why technical jargon exists.)

Such a broad application of parenthesis leaves me guessing at what you're saying, so I cannot either agree or disagree because I can only take a guess at what you are saying (which could be one of dozens of different possible things.) This is how political rhetoric is employed. People use vagueness and ambiguity to appear to be knowledgeable, rather than poen themselves up to the fact that no matter what they try and say it will always fall short in some measure or another. Here the best we can do is expose our weak explications so others can possibly help us to refine them and together find a common point of reference from which to assemble understanding in a particular area and a particular context.

In neuroscience we can look at "consciousiousness" in many different ways. In principle though it is a physical science and one which relies on taking measurements and readings. As philosophy of the mind has become very much entwined with the knowledge of neuroscience it makes some sense to apply what you are saying to physical phenomena observed in neurosciences.

So when you are talking about "memory" and "recognition" in what you're saying I require much more depth in way of explanation with possibly some reference to a philosophical work.

If you find this "hostile" and/or "condescending" so what?

note: I am always trying to engage with you. If I give up now I will try again when I think I might be able to build a bridge of understanding or help in some way. I spent the time to write this because I think you're worth it, not because you felt the need to send me a warning - you can see in the PM what I think of that. So bye again for now ... unless you can present more substance?