I don't understand how you guys get the physical processes of the brain mixed up with a perceiver.

Let me explain...

An action (such as all the actions in the brain) refers to a happening. A happening or an action is the change that an entity undertakes, but it is not an entity.

I think this is in accord with most of your views so far. If I understand correctly, most of you believe that the perceiver is the complex actions taking place in the brain, since the matter that composes the brain or any part of the brain, is not conscious.

I don't know how to lay it out more basically than that. If you don't understand the Logic behind it, then you are purposely trying (very hard) to avoid it.

You make things complex without good reason and the basic meaning of the discussion just fades into 'something beyond our understanding' because it is so 'complex'.

What I am trying to show is not complex at all. The workings may be, but the point isn't.

This is not neuroscience, it is simple philosophy.

[This message has been edited by Filip Sandor (edited April 15, 2001).]

Well in new age philosophy that I've read, the observer just observes. It doesn't think or have emotions. It just watches over it all.
I think my model could be used to make a conscious machine. I told the programmer of the "Creatures" game, Steve Grand, about it. He just has a problem with how to explain this perceiver. I think that my system would behave just like a conscious being, and tell you it is conscious, and maybe get depressed if you tell it that it isn't real - but I'm not sure if it would have the sensation of being real like we do. The central executive (hippocampus-type thing) that oversees the working memory would be observing it, and perceive rich sensations (colour, touch, sound, etc) and strong emotions (seeking or avoidance drives with differing priorities).
Maybe you could think of it in this way:
Humans obviously have a "perceiver". Apes and dogs probably do. Where is the line? Reptiles? Fish? Invertebrates? Plants? Cells? What about computers?

Hi JohnClay
Here is a website if you like to study a phase transition theory for consciousness in greater depth
http://liley.physics.swin.oz.au/
Very interesting findings!

No, no, no. This is precisely what I'm trying to avoid telling you. A closer analog would be you influence society. A population can be modeled as a system that follows certain rules, without having to know the details of the individuals. An individual follows predictable rules and patterns in their daily life (generally). Two different system, the social system built on top of the individual system. The social system affects the rules by which the individual operates, which in turn feeds back into the social system, changing it's rules. For that to happen in physics, a chemical process would have to be able to change the nature of an atom, which would in turn change the interaction on a chemical level. The systems I'm refering to have to be able to rewrite their own rules of operation.

That's certainly well within your rights to do. However, I personally don't think there needs to be an appeal to the supernatural for this framework, especially when by doing so we don't answer any questions.

Ok, so in 10-20 years when the first AI machines start popping up, will they have souls made by man? I think so.


Again, I cannot say that you are wrong. I will say that you are drawing a conclusion without any evidence.



So the question is loaded so that it can't be explained without theology. You are ruling out an entire class of answers a priori without justification. A process is also a thing, not one you can touch like a brick, but a thing none the less. And that's what I've been trying to describe, a way for simple tangible elements to interact in increasingly complex layers, ultimately capable of changing it's own rules of operation, and being aware of that change.

I think that a lot of 'New Age' books are more meant for profit, with only a glimmer of hope, of actually teaching people something behind the cover. Take a book that teaches Astral Travelling, for example... what good is it to someone who just sees spirituality as a magical place of warmth and comfort in their minds (as most people who purchase the New Age books do) and buys the book because it has a captivating title, a fascinating picture on the cover, with a promissing summary on the back? Unfortunately, I think that a lot of New Age books are written by dreamers themselves who might know some things, but don't really understand the things they know.

People nowadays tend to think that they can read a book, change some things around the house, dress differently and suddenly be true spiritualists or enlightened.

I don't think the New Age books are all together bad, but they expose things that most people don't understand, so people take it how they want to, not how it really is.

Like joys and sorrows...?

I don't doubt that a fairly advanced computer can be programmed to 'act' as though it is actually conscious, but I don't believe that it can be; I take it you know why.

These kinds of questions are out of my league. I have some theories, but I would rather you attempt to figure it out more for yourself. It took me a couple years, since I began to 'see things differently', to come up with the theories that I have come up with. I find it rewarding, that I sometimes see the things I had thought of in books dealing with esoteric knowledge. I am not much of a reader, although everyone once in a while I will delve into a book or certain texts; I am more of a hard thinker.

Mind you, I am no teacher. Everyone should do what they can to learn for themselves, especially when it comes to spirituality (the essence of life and meaning). The information is out there, it is even embedded within us; we have to find it, learn it, begin to know it and undertand it to begin to consciously aid our own evolution (not pleasures).

Did you read that (linked) article I posted earlier? About the new discoveries being made in modern physics? The article is called Discovering Harmony Between Science and Spirituality, read it, but don't expect me to answer all your questions; I am just like you... I'm learning.

[This message has been edited by Filip Sandor (edited April 16, 2001).]

I'm talking about fundamental Buddhist and Yoga doctrines here... I only like certain modern New Age books - e.g. Ken Keyes's "Handbook to Higher Consciousness". I don't take every word as gospel though, but it makes a lot of sense. Note that Ken Keyes used to be a successful businessman, but he wasn't happy - that is why he eventually turned to New Age thought in his search for happiness. The experts on Oprah that talk about the "here and now" and "loving everyone including yourself" and higher consciousnesses (loving everything as opposed to seeking happiness) - something that Ken Keyes did over 25 years ago. His later books talk about how our childhood affects us and the evolution of our brain. Ken Keyes always said to just go on with your life as you did before. He sees life as just a game. A fun game.

Yeah. Joys are basically you being rewarded for finding resonations. (So that your knowledge of the world becomes as complete as possible) They are desireable so that you seek them. Though civilised people (especially puritans) can suppress many of their natural urges. I think sorrows come when part of what you took for granted suddenly becomes no longer true. So your belief systems are inconsistent. (They aren't resonating) Also, you would have associated the loss of that loved thing (resonating thing) with pain - so when you lost it, you experienced pain - pain that doesn't easily go away, unless you learn to accept the loss instead of continuing to associate it with pain. I expect that conscious machines would suffer the same types of neuroses that we do - except that I don't think the aggression drive is necessary for consciousness. It isn't even necessary for self-defense - those things can be done rationally as opposed to being overtaken by rage.

The computer wouldn't be programmed - it would learn, like we do, over many years (or at least weeks or months). Firstly, the system would seek to understand the outside world better. It would learn language (if given the opportunity) and associate words with the outside world - and itself. And then it would be able to describe its own emotions, etc.

Well consciousness was previously just in the domain of philosophy, but now science is trying to explain it. I also like it when things that I thought of are confirmed by others.

You mean seek enlightenment... well I think it does bring pleasure. (In my model, we have a "resonation" or consistency drive)

Thanks for the link. From what I read of it, I agree that we can get into a state of timelessness. To do that you've just got to quiten your little voice in your head. Animals can do that since they don't even have a voice - they live eternally in the present - not spending their life-time feeling ashamed of a particular past event or feeling depressed that they will be miserable all their lives or worry about what will happen to the earth in a few centuries time... I am familiar with what they're saying. But being here in the present means that you don't think about the after-life since it is irrelevant. You should only believe things that have sufficient evidence. (And don't believe to strongly either)

It is late right now, so I am going to take some time tomorrow to check out the 'Ken Keyes' link you posted, but I would like to respond to your post before I go to sleep.

Somehow, I'm not that surprised to hear you have such an interest in studying esoteric knowledge, since your last post. You say a lot of the (New Age) esoteric material you have read makes a lot of sense... yet, you seem to take a firm stance against the possibility of such a thing as a metaphysical, conscious entity?

Just curious, I would like to hear how you would describe, just roughly, your own vision of what higher-consciousness is; what it means to be enlightened.

I'm really tired right now, so I won't be responding in great detail (sorry). I am in 'resonance' with most of the views you express... but I believe things like emotions go much deeper, beneath biological functions. It's pretty tough to explain emotions, they seem to 'evade' what we see as logical.

Like I said, I am sure that a complex enough machine would be able to immitate consciousness by the way it 'expresses' it's internal, physical processes (computations). Computers have basic 'learning' skills already. Windows will recognize new software that is installe and will que other software to 'adapt' (ie. I installed Photoshop 6.0 onto my mom's computer, it automatically 'knew' what kind of scanner the computer had hooked up to it and adapted certain menu items within the program to work with the scanner software. Still, I don't believe my computer is in any way shape of form, conscious.

I truly believe that consciousness is not a virtue that can be had by any computer, no matter how "conscious" a computer may seem.

Yes, I agree, seeking *enlightenment* can bring pleasure.

You are welcome for the link, I hope you will read the entire article. It's not long and it is very interesting!

Being here, in the present, is what it is and it is different for all people. I haven't managed to place myself in a conscious state, where I am unaware of what we know as 'time', for more than a few hours (when I am reading a good book, or doing something I enjoy).

Experiencing timelessness does not mean there are certain things we do not or should not think about, it just means experiencing 'timelessness'.

As for what not believing certain things too strongly being a good thing, I know what you are saying, but it is not as easily done as it is painted with words. I am a compulsive thinker... or at least, I think a lot; not because I want to, I just do. I may not be very good with words, but I have a vivid imagination and I can play around with (and understand) some pretty heavy thoughts.

Coming to this discussion board can be quite satisfying, I must say, I get to release some thought energy, and share it with others on the board. It's a good place here to discuss the philosophical thoughts that so often run back and forth in my mind.


Anyway, I'm just about falling asleep, my eyes are getting heavy... so I'll end this post now. I'll check out the link you posted tomorrow and read your response.

I am simply stating that consciousness is an emergent property of matter rather that the matter itself or individual atoms, and it is only when matter reaches a critical level of complexity is when anything like consciousness emerges. So conscious matter emerges from preexisting simpler matter like a subcritical number neural processes. I can't see how consciousness can exist in the extreme conditions of the big bang, a vacuum or single atoms, but it obviously does exist now, so it must be somewhere in between. Somewhere in between are primitive entities likes some reptiles or the human fetus in its early stage of development may have the most primitive form of consciousness, but anything less than that is not conscious.

When consciousness first consciousness emerges for a fetus for example it is rather like something we go through every night when we are asleep; this is rapid eye movement sleep REM and a fetus has a lot more of it. This may first occur when a fetus makes its first kick. It is rather interesting the Australian Aborigines measure the age of somebody from the time they make their first kick in the womb. The transition between the deeper levels of sleep and REM sleep is what I believe to another phase transition like water crystallizing into ice. So you first come into this world with REM sleep and this REM sleep is a property that is switched genetically. I am pretty sure it is genetically determined because of what happens when there is a mutation in this gene that causes it not to function properly it can lead to a condition known as narcolepsy that is when one is emotionally excited their automatic body disabling function in their brain is switched on, and they just drop like a puppet with its strings cut. This is good evidence that conscious is genetically determined.
And also a geneticist Martha Hotz Vitaterna identified a gene for mammalian circadian rhythms in rats, another genetic basis for consciousness.

Before you the fetus becomes conscious your brain cells are mere just slavishly obeying their genetically encoded instruction to migrate to their respective positions in your fetal brain and it only a critical stage of development you wake up in a kind of quasi-reality in REM sleep.

Since consciousness it may well be genetically switched on, there a millions of other fetuses emulating the same information processes, then as the instance consciousness it switched on, you are at first co-conscious with all of them because after all there is no sense of self put into the context events you may of experienced in personal sense of past or present in a historical context. That is not until chaotic randomness forces you to gravitate to just one in a kind of Gestalt Switch as you begin to experience your sense of self in a personal historical context, and you a locked in that trajectory through time until your death. Consciousness is really the only way any interval time can be noticed, or any present moment in time for that matter.

I still have to stress that your conscious [b]sense of self[/i] is a function of complex matter, but I must add your bodily self if not at all contingent a certain select set of atoms in the cosmos with your name tag on them, and they miraculously have to gather together in one little corner in the universe in this little blue dot in the cosmos we call Earth, I believe any set of atoms on the right complex configuration would suffice to generate your sense of self into existence. After all we are all just a function of matter rather than the matter itself, but matter still really matters.


stormcloud

Consciousness is something else entirely, from the conscious perceiver. It is the conscious perceiver I'm seeking a definition for, from you guys, not... I repeat, not consciousness.

You theories are good, but they are not targetting the question I asked in this thread, they are targetting consciousness and not the conscious perceiver.

That's the whole point, consciousness *IS* the conscious perceiver. The conscious perceiver is the thing that exhibits consciousness, IOW, the complex structure.