Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Sammi · 07-18-2002, 10:59 AM

All data will be sense data. Data from outside (a posteriori), and data corrupted from inside (soliphist).

SIR, we only have sense data with which to work, OR do you actually believe in the magical wand.

* * *

"Independent corroboration" is essentially what I mean when speaking of consciousness and the "strength of consciousness". Could it be weak consciousness snowballing into strong consciousness which gives us the idea of I.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ierrellus · 07-19-2002, 04:18 AM

Sammi,

If you have read any of my posts, you would notice my strong objection to "magical, mystery tours". There are no arcana.

If sense-data is all we have to go on, we could not interpret sense-data. Somatic data is not a corruption; it is a translation.

Which of these are not conscious?---an amoeba, a human infant of two-week's of age, someone on LSD,
someone with Altheimers, a thermostadt, a zombie?

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

Mr. Sammi · 07-19-2002, 04:39 AM

I think you are trying to control the flow of intellect too much. I am not a student. In philosophy this technique only works for some but it never works for seasoned thinkers. Try again!

Unfortunately you will have to come to grips with the idea that consciousness is an active phenomena AND not a passive phenomena...

Perhaps you should step back a bit and give my point concerning "independent corroboration", a stronger reading. You might find the human kingdom in posession of more "independent corroboration techniques" than the animal kingdom.

As an aside, your path in life is your own, you choose as you wish, but remember, I also choose as I wish.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi · 07-19-2002, 04:44 AM

Ierrellus, I missed making this point which was sometimes it is better to walk before one can run. I amsure this is built into infants. So before trying to make a concluding remark, I think you should be sensible enough to understand, there will have to be a few points made concerning consciousness, then the tying remark, then the application of the knowledge. You should realise any other approach is a total waste of time. So please be easy on me.

Sammi Na Boodie (in earnest)

excreationist · 07-19-2002, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ierrellus:
What I am looking for is an answer to the following question. Is a paradigmatic definition of consciousness, which would apply to all organisms expressing this phenomenon, possible?

I think so. Firstly I'll talk about what I think aware and conscious systems are...
In the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=" target="_blank">Humans vs. Nonconscious Machines</a> thread I gave various definitions about this and later explained my definitions and their implications in further detail on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=2" target="_blank">pages 2</a> and <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000268&p=3" target="_blank">3</a>.

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 which are described in <a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development</a>

I guess a "theory of mind" would emerge in Piaget's later stages. I'd say that consciousness involves being at at least the concrete operational stage.

Now to define awareness:

Awareness is a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs *learnt* through experience about how the world works.

I just changed a few words from an earlier definition. My formal definition for consciousness would probably mention that it analyses its behaviour, etc, from a detached point of view... language would probably be necessary to do this so that the "I" becomes disembodied from the brain... when you say "I" it seems like you are no longer your brain - that you are something larger than that. Well that's just some thoughts about my definition of consciousness... I really need to read more of Piaget to get more information about his stages - that might help me come up with a proper definition for consciousness. But I think my definition of awareness plus that informal part about how consciousness just involves sufficient extra learning might be ok for now...

Quote:

IMO, such a definition is made impossible by the following criteria:

Confusing
1.consciousness with a single brain state

Well my definition of consciousness would be similar to my definition of awareness - i.e. it would begin like this: "consciousness is a process involving a system....". So consciousness would be changing/dynamic. (That's what processes are) Single brain states are static.

Quote:

2.any subset of consciousness with its empirical manifestations

This is usually an objection to my ideas...

Quote:

3.non-homologious reference systems with those that have a homology by use of analogy

I don't think that applies to my ideas.

There are more. These are a good start.

Ierrellus
PAX[/QB][/QUOTE]

So what do you think of my ideas?

Quote:

...Which of these are not conscious?---an amoeba, a human infant of two-week's of age,

An amoeba wouldn't meet my criteria for an aware system (it doesn't have long-term memories, learn problem-solving strategies, etc) so it is not conscious. An infant would probably be aware, but not conscious. (According to my definitions)

Quote:

someone on LSD,

They would still see and hear the outside world to some degree and interact with it with a certain amount of competence... they'd be conscious.

Quote:

someone with Altheimers,

I don't know much about Alzheimers... if they analyse themselves, etc, they would be conscious... otherwise maybe not...

Quote:

a thermostat,

They're pretty intelligent but not aware (so not conscious either).

Quote:

a zombie?

I don't know what you mean by a zombie... perhaps you mean "a thing that acts conscious or aware, but is not". If a zombie is defined as not being conscious or aware then that's what it is.

Mr. Sammi · 07-20-2002, 07:32 AM

Ierrellus,

I apologise if I threaded not too lightly on your feelings. I felt un-necessarily persecuted by others lurking in the dark corners of philosophy.

* * *
Concerning the topic, would consciousness imply an ability to accumulate and retain certain elements of history?

If this ability to retain historical experience is negated, then what limited form of consciousness would be left? Would this form of consciousness be visible as constant discovery (re-discovery from the 3rd eye) on the part of phenomena exhibiting consciousness.

Would this be the "stupidity of consciousness"?

Sammi Na Boodie (in good faith)

Ierrellus · 07-20-2002, 07:47 AM

Mr. Sammi,

If I can get past your pomposity and inveterate misuse of the English language, I'd like to offer clarification of my thread and reasonable advice to you. First, the reasonable advice. If you equate what you believe with your personal sense of identity, you must not put your beliefs up for critique. Second, by way of apology, there are only 1123 papers on consciousness in the Chalmers' collection. I have not, by any means
read them all.

Neither do I make any claims of being Moses. If the four criteria for confusion that I prefaced with IMO are invalid for you, you need to refute them. Your concept of "independent corroboration" has merit for me if it defines who does the corroboration and what it is independent of.

Otherwise, I would advise Paxil.

Ierrellus
Pax

Ierrellus · 07-20-2002, 08:06 AM

Mr. Sammi,

I will accept your apology, if you can accept mine. The last post I addressed to you was reaction to your ideas. I have followed your recent thread on Fundamentals and have sympathised with you on the philosophical and personalized beatings you receive.

Your ideas on "accumulation and retention" appeal to me as a genetic evolutionist. Please clarify.

Ierrellus
PAX

Ierrellus · 07-20-2002, 08:43 AM

excreationist,

I have read your posts on several threads and personally agree with most of what you say. I especially appreciate your distiction between reference processing systems that are aware and those that are not. The latter probably fits the definition of "zombie" as postulated by Todd Moody and summarily castigated by Dennett as an example of all that is confusing in the literature about consciousness.

I need to read more Piaget, also, in order to determine for myself if he espouses recapitulationism and can save that idea from the now defunct fetal mimicry of mammalian evolution idea.

Thanks for the proper spelling of Alzheimers. My desk dictionary is 1960!

Ierrellus
PAX

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

excreationist · 07-20-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ierrellus:
...I need to read more Piaget, also, in order to determine for myself if he espouses recapitulationism and can save that idea from the now defunct fetal mimicry of mammalian evolution idea...

That Piaget link contains about all I know about his theories. Note that I'm just interested in the stages he identified... (I want to find out what the substages of the first stage is sometime...) I wouldn't necessarily agree with any of his speculations about how consciousness works.

According to <a href="http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/piaget.html" target="_blank">Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology:
Appreciation and Critique</a>, "It took Piaget about 20 years to shake loose from recapitulationism".

About recapitulationism - dictionary.com it says recapitulate means "To appear to repeat (the evolutionary stages of the species) during the embryonic development of the individual organism." I guess it means that idea that an embryo goes through the amoeba stage, fish stage, etc.

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

07-19-2002, 04:18 AM	#12
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Sammi, If you have read any of my posts, you would notice my strong objection to "magical, mystery tours". There are no arcana. If sense-data is all we have to go on, we could not interpret sense-data. Somatic data is not a corruption; it is a translation. Which of these are not conscious?---an amoeba, a human infant of two-week's of age, someone on LSD, someone with Altheimers, a thermostadt, a zombie? Ierrellus PAX [ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

07-20-2002, 08:43 AM	#19
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	excreationist, I have read your posts on several threads and personally agree with most of what you say. I especially appreciate your distiction between reference processing systems that are aware and those that are not. The latter probably fits the definition of "zombie" as postulated by Todd Moody and summarily castigated by Dennett as an example of all that is confusing in the literature about consciousness. I need to read more Piaget, also, in order to determine for myself if he espouses recapitulationism and can save that idea from the now defunct fetal mimicry of mammalian evolution idea. Thanks for the proper spelling of Alzheimers. My desk dictionary is 1960! Ierrellus PAX [ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

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

07-18-2002, 10:59 AM	#11
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	All data will be sense data. Data from outside (a posteriori), and data corrupted from inside (soliphist). SIR, we only have sense data with which to work, OR do you actually believe in the magical wand. * * * "Independent corroboration" is essentially what I mean when speaking of consciousness and the "strength of consciousness". Could it be weak consciousness snowballing into strong consciousness which gives us the idea of I. Sammi Na Boodie ()

07-19-2002, 04:39 AM	#13
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	I think you are trying to control the flow of intellect too much. I am not a student. In philosophy this technique only works for some but it never works for seasoned thinkers. Try again! Unfortunately you will have to come to grips with the idea that consciousness is an active phenomena AND not a passive phenomena... Perhaps you should step back a bit and give my point concerning "independent corroboration", a stronger reading. You might find the human kingdom in posession of more "independent corroboration techniques" than the animal kingdom. As an aside, your path in life is your own, you choose as you wish, but remember, I also choose as I wish. Sammi Na Boodie ()

07-19-2002, 04:44 AM	#14
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Ierrellus, I missed making this point which was sometimes it is better to walk before one can run. I amsure this is built into infants. So before trying to make a concluding remark, I think you should be sensible enough to understand, there will have to be a few points made concerning consciousness, then the tying remark, then the application of the knowledge. You should realise any other approach is a total waste of time. So please be easy on me. Sammi Na Boodie (in earnest)

07-20-2002, 07:32 AM	#16
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Ierrellus, I apologise if I threaded not too lightly on your feelings. I felt un-necessarily persecuted by others lurking in the dark corners of philosophy. * * * Concerning the topic, would consciousness imply an ability to accumulate and retain certain elements of history? If this ability to retain historical experience is negated, then what limited form of consciousness would be left? Would this form of consciousness be visible as constant discovery (re-discovery from the 3rd eye) on the part of phenomena exhibiting consciousness. Would this be the "stupidity of consciousness"? Sammi Na Boodie (in good faith)

07-20-2002, 07:47 AM	#17
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Mr. Sammi, If I can get past your pomposity and inveterate misuse of the English language, I'd like to offer clarification of my thread and reasonable advice to you. First, the reasonable advice. If you equate what you believe with your personal sense of identity, you must not put your beliefs up for critique. Second, by way of apology, there are only 1123 papers on consciousness in the Chalmers' collection. I have not, by any means read them all. Neither do I make any claims of being Moses. If the four criteria for confusion that I prefaced with IMO are invalid for you, you need to refute them. Your concept of "independent corroboration" has merit for me if it defines who does the corroboration and what it is independent of. Otherwise, I would advise Paxil. Ierrellus Pax

07-20-2002, 08:06 AM	#18
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Mr. Sammi, I will accept your apology, if you can accept mine. The last post I addressed to you was reaction to your ideas. I have followed your recent thread on Fundamentals and have sympathised with you on the philosophical and personalized beatings you receive. Your ideas on "accumulation and retention" appeal to me as a genetic evolutionist. Please clarify. Ierrellus PAX

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.