Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 02-26-2003, 11:23 PM

I think people's usage of words like "consciousness" is very ambiguous.
To help me understand your word better, what things would you consider to be conscious, and what things wouldn't you consider to be conscious?
e.g. are infants conscious? What about toddlers? What about chimps who've been taught sign language? What about wild chimps? What about cats? Dogs? Mice? Sheep? Parrots? Sparrows? Snakes? Frogs? Sharks? Goldfish? Bees? Ants? Worms? Unborn babies? Fertilized human eggs? Trees? Venus fly traps?

Personally, I use "conscious" to describe people that have begun to ask questions about the world and "aware" to describe goal-driven self-programming systems (birds, mammals, bees?)...

Here I defined it in more detail... I'm not exactly sure which of Piaget's stages I'd put "consciousness" at... maybe the "concrete operational stage" where "Egocentric thought diminishes"... (i.e. they think more abstractly - outside of their direct experiences)

Quote:

The hierarchy of intelligent systems:

1. Processing Systems [or Programmed Systems]
...receive [or detect], process and respond to input.

2. Aware Systems
...receive input and respond according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works
(self-motivated, acting on self-learnt beliefs) ["self" refers to the system as a whole]

This learning can lead to more sophisticated self-motivated intelligence. This is taken straight from Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development.

2. Sensorimotor stage (Infancy). (the same as "Aware Systems")
In this period (which has 6 stages), intelligence is demonstrated through motor activity without the use of symbols. Knowledge of the world is limited (but developing) because its based on physical interactions / experiences. Children acquire object permanence at about 7 months of age (memory). Physical development (mobility) allows the child to begin developing new intellectual abilities. Some symbollic (language) abilities are developed at the end of this stage.

3. Pre-operational stage (Toddler and Early Childhood).
In this period (which has two substages), intelligence is demonstrated through the use of symbols, language use matures, and memory and imagination are developed, but thinking is done in a nonlogical, nonreversable manner. Egocentric thinking predominates

4. Concrete operational stage (Elementary and early adolescence). (perhaps the beginning of "Conscious Systems")
In this stage (characterized by 7 types of conservation: number, length, liquid, mass, weight, area, volume), intelligence is demonstarted through logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to concrete objects. Operational thinking develops (mental actions that are reversible). Egocentric thought diminishes.

5. Formal operational stage (Adolescence and adulthood).
In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood.

Note that Piaget has 4 stages... but I numbered them 2 to 5... maybe I could renumber it all and have "processing/programmed systems" as stage 0.... ?

MyKell · 02-26-2003, 11:33 PM

I think a distinction should be made between consciousness and self-consciousness which is a higher order cognitive ability that only humans seem to have.
Consciousness is the ability to construct a mental scenary, something that most higher animals can do. I don't know exactly which animals do that, but most vertebrates and some invertebrates (like octopuses) can do that. Species differ in conceptual categorization, so the mental scenary doesn't have to be visual (for instance, the world of a bat).
Self-consciousness comes only with language, and the ability to sematically encode objects in the world. It also involves the concept of the self, which human infants do not have. Chimps can recognize themselves in the mirrors and some learn sign language, so my guess is that they do have some sort of self-consciousness.

MyKell · 02-26-2003, 11:35 PM

Stage 3

excreationist · 02-27-2003, 12:23 AM

MyKell:
Is that stage 3 using my numbering system or Piaget's? Sorry for the confusion but I made his 4 stages go from 2 to 5.

MyKell · 02-27-2003, 12:34 AM

I was referring to your stage 3

Frotiw · 02-27-2003, 12:44 PM

I agree that the conecept of consciousness is confused. I can only recommend you read some of the articles from Ned Block:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/

He writes(e.g.) about different states of consciosness like acces-consciosness and phenomenological consciosness.

abe smith · 02-28-2003, 06:47 AM

My own certainly-amateur altho *1st* person impression izz, that iron-boxing "consciousness" and "unconsciousness" is something non-biologist academics like very much to do, & feel secure-er doing; And/but ( = I think) that entities made-of-water, as we are, do not have/function-
with, barriers of that sort.
OttopomyH, I'd hazard that human experience (always occuring single/"self"- packaged!) is more probably like swimming in a morass (like that ocean-place I forget where the eels go to? and lost ships end-up?; or like that scene in one of the Starwars movies, where our heroes are swimming in the ship's cesspool?) = a kind of sensory several-days-ripened Bouillabaisse, if that's how you spell it. = extremely-various, much-unsorted. Delicious, tho.
Also, given the sorts of experiential/sensory variations which we (do) know turn-up in individual human experiencers (The ONLY loci =human experiencers, at which anything-human does turn-up (= There is no Platonic/abstract out-there "consciousness" etc.) ), we almost certainly 'd better-not start arguing about such non-existent abstractions.... as *general* "consciousness" and "unconsciousness". The fact that psychologists et al. INVENT those fictions does not prove that those exist in "reality".

The Sargasso Sea was the sensory image/metaphor I had in mind.
You see that my personal prose-style is that same sort of hetero(sic)geneous stew..... (aaaarrrrrrggghhhh)

.

excreationist · 02-28-2003, 05:38 PM

abe smith:
What things are "conscious" though, in your opinion? Anything made up of water? (i.e. all or practically all life?)

MyKell · 03-01-2003, 06:22 AM

Quote:

What things are "conscious" though, in your opinion? Anything made up of water? (i.e. all or practically all life?)

I don't think any scientist takes that seriously other than Stuart Kauffman. Check out his theoris on autonomous agents and consciousness.

abe smith · 03-05-2003, 06:26 AM

In response to your polite qy aloft ^^^^^ dear excreationist, I *do not think*in your sort of categories; I tried to make clear (evidently have not done so) in my reply ^^ that for me (an ordinary singular , sic, human animal = one-unit self-package = the ONLY form/structure in wh/ so far as Oi know, any sort of so-called "human consciousness" occurs ), ... for me, I say, I do NOT buy that "academicians's" ironbox category junk about "consciousness" and "unconsciousness". Experience is ALL ONE THING for me; and I ain' going to waste my stuff arguing about it.
Zhe m'en fiche de that stuff. That's french, in part. ( "After the schole of Stratford atte Bowe." Does that mean that the Prioresse spoke w/ a Cockney accent? Ahah! Love it!)

02-28-2003, 06:47 AM	#7
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Conc/unconc barrier? My own certainly-amateur altho 1st person impression izz, that iron-boxing "consciousness" and "unconsciousness" is something non-biologist academics like very much to do, & feel secure-er doing; And/but ( = I think) that entities made-of-water, as we are, do not have/function- with, barriers of that sort. OttopomyH, I'd hazard that human experience (always occuring single/"self"- packaged!) is more probably like swimming in a morass (like that ocean-place I forget where the eels go to? and lost ships end-up?; or like that scene in one of the Starwars movies, where our heroes are swimming in the ship's cesspool?) = a kind of sensory several-days-ripened Bouillabaisse, if that's how you spell it. = extremely-various, much-unsorted. Delicious, tho. Also, given the sorts of experiential/sensory variations which we (do) know turn-up in individual human experiencers (The ONLY loci =human experiencers, at which anything-human does turn-up (= There is no Platonic/abstract out-there "consciousness" etc.) ), we almost certainly 'd better-not start arguing about such non-existent abstractions.... as general "consciousness" and "unconsciousness". The fact that psychologists et al. INVENT those fictions does not prove that those exist in "reality". The Sargasso Sea was the sensory image/metaphor I had in mind. You see that my personal prose-style is that same sort of hetero(sic)geneous stew..... (aaaarrrrrrggghhhh) .

03-05-2003, 06:26 AM	#10
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	to excreationist, reply In response to your polite qy aloft ^^^^^ dear excreationist, I do not thinkin your sort of categories; I tried to make clear (evidently have not done so) in my reply ^^ that for me (an ordinary singular , sic, human animal = one-unit self-package = the ONLY form/structure in wh/ so far as Oi know, any sort of so-called "human consciousness" occurs ), ... for me, I say, I do NOT buy that "academicians's" ironbox category junk about "consciousness" and "unconsciousness". Experience is ALL ONE THING for me; and I ain' going to waste my stuff arguing about it. Zhe m'en fiche de that stuff. That's french, in part. ( "After the schole of Stratford atte Bowe." Does that mean that the Prioresse spoke w/ a Cockney accent? Ahah! Love it!)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2003, 11:33 PM	#2
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	I think a distinction should be made between consciousness and self-consciousness which is a higher order cognitive ability that only humans seem to have. Consciousness is the ability to construct a mental scenary, something that most higher animals can do. I don't know exactly which animals do that, but most vertebrates and some invertebrates (like octopuses) can do that. Species differ in conceptual categorization, so the mental scenary doesn't have to be visual (for instance, the world of a bat). Self-consciousness comes only with language, and the ability to sematically encode objects in the world. It also involves the concept of the self, which human infants do not have. Chimps can recognize themselves in the mirrors and some learn sign language, so my guess is that they do have some sort of self-consciousness.

02-26-2003, 11:35 PM	#3
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	Stage 3

02-27-2003, 12:23 AM	#4
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	MyKell: Is that stage 3 using my numbering system or Piaget's? Sorry for the confusion but I made his 4 stages go from 2 to 5.

02-27-2003, 12:34 AM	#5
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	I was referring to your stage 3

02-27-2003, 12:44 PM	#6
Frotiw Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 122	I agree that the conecept of consciousness is confused. I can only recommend you read some of the articles from Ned Block: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/ He writes(e.g.) about different states of consciosness like acces-consciosness and phenomenological consciosness.

02-28-2003, 05:38 PM	#8
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	abe smith: What things are "conscious" though, in your opinion? Anything made up of water? (i.e. all or practically all life?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.