Why do we have consciousness, and where did it come from?
- Thread starter LunaClover
- Start date
- Status
Alucard said:I'm actually mostly talking out of my ass on this and have minimal experience with Descartes and have a passing interest in philosophy.
Haha... just FYI, Descartes theorized that the pineal gland was the essential part of the brain that mixed the biomechanical effects of the brain with the mind/spirit/soul on the etheral plane.
I say biomechanical, but his understanding of human workings was more like a system of hydraulics and what not.
Smart guy... but wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
Does anyone read my posts?? Daniel Dennett, people. Daniel Dennett!
Consciousness is nothing more than a symphony of receptors and sensors and logic units. We know it's biological as we have many uncontrollable responses, like flinching. Hell, our more vital functions are completely automated. The brain can keep a vast collection of parts fully functioning and operational without any conscious effort on our part. What's so amazing of our awareness? We have basic functions that would be necessary to keep us feeding/mating as organisms. So we'll have sexual instincts/responses and hunting instincts/responses. This would require some senses (sight, sound, touch or smell) and the ability to decode this information. Already, you're well on your way to being self-aware if you're now aware of your environment and others of your own kind.
IMO, if some chromosomes are enough to generate a complex human, with billions of unique identities, then a large bundle of neurons, sensors and receptors should be able to recognize its own existence...consciousness. PEACE.
EDIT: Whoops, didn't see Zap's post. Yeah, he said it better.
IMO, if some chromosomes are enough to generate a complex human, with billions of unique identities, then a large bundle of neurons, sensors and receptors should be able to recognize its own existence...consciousness. PEACE.
EDIT: Whoops, didn't see Zap's post. Yeah, he said it better.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
Nice. I heard good things on that book also. *goes to order it on amazon*
dasein said:
I'm a psychologist major, not a philosophy or worst a theology major. I did one class of philosophy... was intresting, but never again.
As far as immaterialism goes... In a pragmatic sense, I do think the percepts of the mind has more reality to it then what actually occurs in the world... that is to say, I'd think you could matrix the human race... and it really wouldn't matter, except grant us an avenue in which resources and limitations become... immaterial.
I've never understood that, it must be authentic! push they had in the matrix... I'd totally be cypher, because the other guys are just dicks.perryfarrell
Member
People consist of two parts: mind and body. Your mind is where experience takes place, and thinking, and feelings.
The body, including the brain, is a different thing altogether. What does brain activity have to do with consciousness? I can easily imagine creatures with fully working brains but w/out anything going on upstairs.
The body, including the brain, is a different thing altogether. What does brain activity have to do with consciousness? I can easily imagine creatures with fully working brains but w/out anything going on upstairs.
tt_deeb said:
I think he's alluding to the mind been the soul/mind/spirit.
Dualism (belief in a corporeal and non corporeal almagamation of self) are simply for those seeking wish fufillment...
It's part of our genes to WANT to live forever... that idea of survival; when you throw higher level cognitive/concept functions into the mix... when the subject becomes aware to the point that he understands mortality... then it's only natural that he wishes to give meaning to self by extending the self beyond the temporary shell of the body.
LunaClover said:It seems to me that science is still completely silent about this nature of consciousness. I know there is not very much information about the connection available, but one would think in this day and age that there would be.
So does anyone have a answer for me? And no worries, this was not a result from a theological/religious thought...I am just highly interested in the way the human brain functions.
I'm still learning about the Mind and the Brain in school, but www.pubmed.com has a very large amount of research papers and journals on pretty much anything you can think of. I'm currently doing a project on the brain and emotions and found lots of interesting things there. I don't think it is safe to say though that there isn't very much information available...I think you'd be surprised. If you are in college, you should look up an organization called CO-SIGN. I don't know where you are from, but I have one at my school and they are all over the United States. It's a student interest group in neurology and neuroscience. I'm learning a lot about the brain in there.
SecretDestroyer
Banned
The mind is what the brain does, it is as simple as that. No soul, no supernatural, no God, no afterlife. Your consciousness ends when your brain is dead so live your best life now. If you want to be important, do something important.
Unfortunately the misguided, miseducated, stupid, or dare I say credulous among us would have you believe otherwise. There is really no arguing with them, they are like the deranged muslim mobs chanting death to those who disrespect Islam. You just have to let them be and hope they die out for the sake out of species.
Unfortunately the misguided, miseducated, stupid, or dare I say credulous among us would have you believe otherwise. There is really no arguing with them, they are like the deranged muslim mobs chanting death to those who disrespect Islam. You just have to let them be and hope they die out for the sake out of species.
civilstrife
Member
Death is nothing to fear.
Was the Eternity before you came into existance so terrible? The Eternity afterwards will be just as painless.
Existentialism ftl
Was the Eternity before you came into existance so terrible? The Eternity afterwards will be just as painless.
Existentialism ftl
Some questions that always makes my head spin are when did time start? And will it ever end? Does the universe have a limit? If so what's beyond? If it didn't rip you into small molecular pieces, what would be on the other side of the black hole?
dark_chris
Member
We have a thing called a soul.
demi said:
Why?
Just because I reject the idea that we have something beyond life means I should reject life itself?
Nay... I embrace life, while understanding the duality of it and death... an end comes to all things... nothing is so important that you'd want to supplant the experience of life to achieve it; because it then becomes meaningless.
So... what can I derive from my own personal philosophy? Enjoy life, without betraying yourself... understand that, ultimately all things are an end to a content happiness... the most pleasant way to while away the opportunity of life, which is ultimately meaningless.
Building upon that philosophy; let others enjoy their life too... find a way to enjoy life without encroaching on the right of others to the same... because one should always be wary of reprecussions.
More then anything else though... because it is so temporal... ultimately so meaningless, you probably shouldn't take things so seriously that you'd bust a vein over it. I'd like to think the french saying 'c'est la vie', best encapsulates my attitude towards life.
SecretDestroyer said:
This can't help but sound a bit cynical. It is possible to live life to the fullest and be a devout christian/muslim whatever. Just because one believes in a God, an afterlife, a soul doesn't make them pitiful or seem as if their very reason for living is for that particular deity.
weepy said:
Well... let me put it this way...
if God existed, but had no rewards for his followers or punishments for his enemies...
how would you roll? Would you really wanna be those tighty whitey bad song singing brainwashed dudes that go and sit on uncomfortable chairs and listen to boring lectures every sunday, or would you rather be figuring out what's best for yourself?
You might find this interesting, if you read the whole thing with an open mind. http://www.timecube.com/
Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' in his (in)famous book, The Selfish Gene. If a gene is the physical hereditary unit that gives rise to physical existence, then a meme is the analogous unit for information/cultre and the like. Like genes, memes can mutate, can be passed on, and can evolve, but they dictate the nurture side of the nature/nurture dichotomy.
Susan Blackmore in 'The Meme Machine' explored the idea of your 'self', that is, your awareness of existence, being, and living as a single entity (despite being a conglomerate and cooperative of biological units, genes, organelles, cells, organs etc). She explained it as being the 'ultimate meme'. In the same way genes were given a near anthropomorphic quality in that they existed only to ensure their own procreation and continued existence, so too were memes attributed. And as genes were 'capable' of coming together to interact and cooperate (though Dawkins would have you believe that it was only because the ultmate goal, the 'selfish' goal, was achieved more efficiently through cooperation), so too did memes - and the collection of all these memes resulted in the 'self'.
My interpretation of her pondering was that the idea of existing as a single entity with 'purpose', 'goals' and so forth was beneficial to existence. It would help the greater 'memeplex' to survive (selfishly, naturall)- in much the same way genes have come together to form genomes, and individual organisms.
Of course, this is what I remember from reading these books some 8 years ago. I was probably naive and really didn't understand what was going on.
Susan Blackmore in 'The Meme Machine' explored the idea of your 'self', that is, your awareness of existence, being, and living as a single entity (despite being a conglomerate and cooperative of biological units, genes, organelles, cells, organs etc). She explained it as being the 'ultimate meme'. In the same way genes were given a near anthropomorphic quality in that they existed only to ensure their own procreation and continued existence, so too were memes attributed. And as genes were 'capable' of coming together to interact and cooperate (though Dawkins would have you believe that it was only because the ultmate goal, the 'selfish' goal, was achieved more efficiently through cooperation), so too did memes - and the collection of all these memes resulted in the 'self'.
My interpretation of her pondering was that the idea of existing as a single entity with 'purpose', 'goals' and so forth was beneficial to existence. It would help the greater 'memeplex' to survive (selfishly, naturall)- in much the same way genes have come together to form genomes, and individual organisms.
Of course, this is what I remember from reading these books some 8 years ago. I was probably naive and really didn't understand what was going on.
sasimirobot
Junior Member
imagine an infant lying in its cradle, and the window is open, and into the room comes something, marvelous, mysterious, glittering, shedding light of many colors, movement, sound, a tranformative hierophany of integrated perception and the child is enthralled and then the mother comes into the room and she says to the child, "that's a bird, baby, that's a bird," instantly the complex wave of the angel peacock irridescent transformative mystery is collapsed, into the word. All mystery is gone, the child learns this is a bird, this is a bird, and by the time we're five or six years old all the mystery of reality has been carefully tiled over with words. This is a bird, this is a house, this is the sky, and we seal ourselves in within a linguistic shell of disempowered perception
http://deoxy.org/t_langvr.htm
consciousness it tied up in language and ego. without those everything just "is"
http://deoxy.org/t_langvr.htm
consciousness it tied up in language and ego. without those everything just "is"
Escape Goat
Member
sasimirobot said:
So until we become capable of telepathy we will have to settle for clumsy linguistic communication.
LunaClover
Member
All of the comments and links are very much appreciated. Thanks for the help
If it makes anything clearer, Im at that point where religion seems like a bandaide. Like its used as an answer to an unanswerable (sp?) question. I just dont feel that its right. I really wish I didnt feel that way, because its beyond scary to let your mind break out of the box. Anywho, thanks.
If it makes anything clearer, Im at that point where religion seems like a bandaide. Like its used as an answer to an unanswerable (sp?) question. I just dont feel that its right. I really wish I didnt feel that way, because its beyond scary to let your mind break out of the box. Anywho, thanks.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
Alright, so this is something I put in mah blog earlier, but then I remembered this thread and thought it might prompt some interesting discussion if I stuck it here. But since I wrote it in my personal blog and I'm too lazy to change it, the way it's written might sound a little funky.
Doesn't have to do with the topic of this thread 100%, but it seems fitting.
Anyway....
Tiptail's response to that amazing CG video I posted a few days back, watching the Animatrix recently (which is ****ing awesome btw, and freaky; "The Second Renaissance" is literally the most disturbing thing I've ever seen in my life), and reading about technological singularity theory has got me thinking about some pretty out-there philosophical stuff...
Technological singularity theory is the theory that one day man will create artificial intelligence that will be smart enough to improve itself at a much faster rate than humans could, and subsequently, humans would lose their crown as the dominant "beings" on this planet, and technological advancement would explode like a supernova. Some followers of this theory believe that the AIs would attain something similar to consciousness. There are also a sect of scientists that believe that human consciousness is an illusion that's created by the mixture of our senses and algorithms co-existing with each other, and if this is true, then there's no reason why advanced AI could not fit our definition of consciousness eventually. If all this was to come true, there's a possibility that the AIs would have goals that would cause them to get rid of humanity, or cage them up without consent for some use, much like we do with monkeys today.
This is what happened in the Matrix. Humans created robots so intelligent that the robots were capable of utterly destroying their creators, and the humans could do little to stop it. Humans were caged up and used as a never-ending, constantly replenishing energy source, while their consciousnesses were plunged into the Matrix.
But AI isn't always created to be aware of the physical world. In fact, at current, our most advanced AI exists solely in the digital one.
It genuinely is amazing how far technology has progressed in the past 25 years. When I was 5 years old, I remember sitting in front of the TV while my brother and dad played Tank on the Atari; a game that required an entire cabinet to house just a decade earlier. 20 years later, we are very literally a universe away from that; we're able to house much more advanced AI and content on mediums the size of buttons.
What if a different sort of technological singularity happened? Not one that affected the physical world, but one that affected the digital one instead? Technology has progressed so much over the past few decades that it seems like we might one day create AI that interacts with a digital environment as thoroughly as we think we interact with ours. Imagine a computer game so advanced that it breeds "artificial" consciousness. Characters would be affected by the grass under their feet, the wind in their hair, and every other subtly of of existence. Every stimulus, and everything the character stimulates, would be coded to present a "realistic" reaction. It would be a game literally coded in our image.
Of course, if this game was installed on your computer, you would fit the literal definition of God. You would be able to see inside of every closed room, hear every conversation, hack into every character to see what kind of reactions they're parsing or planning on taking, and make edits to the game that might seem "miraculous" to the game's characters because they wouldn't know any better. Technology might even advance enough to make such games cheap and widely available. "Control your own literal universe for the low, low price of $39.99!"
Some metaphysicists believe that we currently are in something akin to the fake world in the Matrix. Imagine that the game on your computer is so advanced that it can also grow intelligent enough to create similar AI. If true, universes would exist within universes that exist within universes, like a real-life M.C. Escher drawing.
For the sake of preventing people from thinking I'm completely off of my rocker, I'll say that I don't believe this stuff. That's how a lot of philosophy goes; there really isn't any way to prove most of it. But it is disturbing to think about how out-there it all seems, while at the same time thinking that it makes sense logically.
Doesn't have to do with the topic of this thread 100%, but it seems fitting.
Anyway....
Tiptail's response to that amazing CG video I posted a few days back, watching the Animatrix recently (which is ****ing awesome btw, and freaky; "The Second Renaissance" is literally the most disturbing thing I've ever seen in my life), and reading about technological singularity theory has got me thinking about some pretty out-there philosophical stuff...
Technological singularity theory is the theory that one day man will create artificial intelligence that will be smart enough to improve itself at a much faster rate than humans could, and subsequently, humans would lose their crown as the dominant "beings" on this planet, and technological advancement would explode like a supernova. Some followers of this theory believe that the AIs would attain something similar to consciousness. There are also a sect of scientists that believe that human consciousness is an illusion that's created by the mixture of our senses and algorithms co-existing with each other, and if this is true, then there's no reason why advanced AI could not fit our definition of consciousness eventually. If all this was to come true, there's a possibility that the AIs would have goals that would cause them to get rid of humanity, or cage them up without consent for some use, much like we do with monkeys today.
This is what happened in the Matrix. Humans created robots so intelligent that the robots were capable of utterly destroying their creators, and the humans could do little to stop it. Humans were caged up and used as a never-ending, constantly replenishing energy source, while their consciousnesses were plunged into the Matrix.
But AI isn't always created to be aware of the physical world. In fact, at current, our most advanced AI exists solely in the digital one.
It genuinely is amazing how far technology has progressed in the past 25 years. When I was 5 years old, I remember sitting in front of the TV while my brother and dad played Tank on the Atari; a game that required an entire cabinet to house just a decade earlier. 20 years later, we are very literally a universe away from that; we're able to house much more advanced AI and content on mediums the size of buttons.
What if a different sort of technological singularity happened? Not one that affected the physical world, but one that affected the digital one instead? Technology has progressed so much over the past few decades that it seems like we might one day create AI that interacts with a digital environment as thoroughly as we think we interact with ours. Imagine a computer game so advanced that it breeds "artificial" consciousness. Characters would be affected by the grass under their feet, the wind in their hair, and every other subtly of of existence. Every stimulus, and everything the character stimulates, would be coded to present a "realistic" reaction. It would be a game literally coded in our image.
Of course, if this game was installed on your computer, you would fit the literal definition of God. You would be able to see inside of every closed room, hear every conversation, hack into every character to see what kind of reactions they're parsing or planning on taking, and make edits to the game that might seem "miraculous" to the game's characters because they wouldn't know any better. Technology might even advance enough to make such games cheap and widely available. "Control your own literal universe for the low, low price of $39.99!"
Some metaphysicists believe that we currently are in something akin to the fake world in the Matrix. Imagine that the game on your computer is so advanced that it can also grow intelligent enough to create similar AI. If true, universes would exist within universes that exist within universes, like a real-life M.C. Escher drawing.
For the sake of preventing people from thinking I'm completely off of my rocker, I'll say that I don't believe this stuff. That's how a lot of philosophy goes; there really isn't any way to prove most of it. But it is disturbing to think about how out-there it all seems, while at the same time thinking that it makes sense logically.
- Status