How do we (atheists) define it?
How do philosophers define it?
How do scientists define it?
How do theologians define it?
How do others, and history and myth define it?
How do YOU, personally define it?
Our world is a shared experience, diversified by individual perspectives.
——— ——— ——— ——— ———
“Consciousness Group” policy here: https://atheistzone.com/groups/consciousness/forum/topic/consciousness-group-policy/
List of speakers here with several talks that are relevant (or just interesting). 5 Nobel Laureates among them.
That is an awesome and challenging list! I’ll first see what I can find and share having to do with specialized areas of the brain.
So we can study “development” at the individual level who’s growing up, at the species level genetically, or at the cultural level over hundreds or thousands of years of genetic and cultural evolution.
I’m sure there are also other interesting perspectives, but I’d really like to mention new research on how dogs may have evolved with us,…[Read more]
Related to my previous post…
I think it’s useful to know that Jaak sorted his primal list largely based on the order in which they probably evolved in brains, so it also reflects largely on which parts of the brain have the “deepest” physiology and evolved usage.
SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC, PLAY.
More advanced…[Read more]
First, some terms and concepts, to highlight the underlying binary nature of how the nervous system and brain operate.
- Our brain is a complex signal processor that evolved from simpler brains, that evolved from simple sensory and control circuits.
- Brains receive sensory data (as input), and provide control signals as output. In neuroscience,…
[…] so if one of these Turing-humans gave you art and it was good enough to be bought and sold on the fine art market, would that necessarily imply a consciousness generating it? And why (whatever your answer is)?
Remember, my concern is whether this being is having experiences, because I think that is what consciousness is…
If I created a very smart machine that turned out paintings, and it had a very human interface (Japanese automatons are becoming creepily believable in terms of their “social stimulus value,” so if one of these Turing-humans gave you art and it was good enough to be bought and sold on the fine art market, would that necessarily imply a…[Read more]
Posting here rather than repeating like a broken record in Unseen’s topic:
We already know that decisions happen before we are aware that we made them […]
It still feels like I made the decision, whether or not it feels like it took time to happen. No definition of “experience” or “I” or “consciousness” or “sub-consciousness” can…[Read more]
(I wrote the following post for Unseen’s excellent topic “Why Are We Conscious?“, but decided to post it here instead so as to not distract from his intended topic trajectory. I love this topic and think it fits well here. Most significant imo is the link to Jaak Pansepp’s work in the next-to-last paragraph.)
Again, it comes down to…
Like I said, consciousness may simply be an accident. One that happened to certain beings on the planet, or maybe just to you.
That’s reasonable, or at least I’d say a long series of accidents that were selected by evolution to live on in genes. Life itself was shaped that way, in uncountable series’ of uncountable accidents and…[Read more]
If you really want to doubt, how can you be sure that you are conscious of anything real at all?
I’m not well learned in philosophy, so my opinions will often be relatively uninformed. That said…
I visualize “the hard problem” as being difficult, only because we so strongly tend to assume there must be some kind of meta nature…[Read more]
This topic will be most uninteresting!
For the sake of editorial transparency, I’m just documenting here how I exercise my stated Consciousness group policy to edit and curate posts and/or topics when I feel it furthers the interest of the group, and furthers the group’s usefulness as a resource to non-group members, even including…[Read more]
I don’t think it’s necessary for a sophisticated system (or even being) to interact with and manipulate its environment to be self-aware or possess what we know as consciousness.
Perhaps it’s just an accident. Lucky or otherwise.
When you study Wittgenstein, you have consider some seemingly crazy ideas. Okay, you are conscious, but can you know…[Read more]
I agree with y’all. Funny how this only seems important to me now, at 65 years old. Answers to whys can be so cloaked in mystery, wonder, and feelings, and the hows are just textbook, pedantic, and require work. Mysteries and dramas are more fun, at least in a group setting like an audience or congregation. Just add fairy dust for the shared…[Read more]
Perhaps how is not as inspirational as why. As an engineer my schooling and career where consumed by the how. When I started managing a team of engineers in developing a doppler weather RADAR, I found that I really had to drive in on the “WHY” we were doing this to inspire the team to figure out “HOW” we were actually going to do this.
So here is where that word “why” bugs me:
In Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness (1995), Chalmers wrote (copy/pasted from wikipedia):
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage i…
- Load More