Kharakov

You are now further clarifying your definition of awareness "a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works" to include an understanding of the world by the being that is aware.

Do you truly understand how the contents of your memories and "desires" relate to the world? You only "understand" the relationships that you have developed in your own mind. The understanding that you have between yourself and the world could ignore many dimensions of possible interaction between you and the world. You might not be aware of many things that have an effect upon you. So you only have an illusion of understanding the world. So does any other being (unless you consider the hypothetical God of Plato, Jews, Xians,....) have a true understanding of its relationship with the world? I don't think anything really does. So by your definition, I don't think anything would actually be fully aware.

</strong>

I am inclined to think that all of these responses can be traced to physical laws that trigger these responses. That there are certain mechanisms in the system that trigger these responses. So if our whole consciousness if just matter responding to physical laws, all matter that responds to physical law has an order of consciousness.

Lets say tha our consciousness depends upon the whole "field" that our body/brain create in order for us to be conscious. All matter creates fields of various strengths- this leads me to believe that our consciousness is just a stronger (more concentrated) field type then the consciousness of a "rock" or some other chunk of matter. Does this mean that our consciousness is capable of higher thought, or does this mean that we are limited in our interaction with weaker field types, that we are blinded by our own light?

excreationist

Learning how the world works for itself is the same thing as understanding how the world works. But "understanding" implies awareness and to avoid a recursive definition of awareness I avoided that term. And it not only learns from its experiences about how the world works, it also uses these beliefs to respond to the world competently (unlike a rock) - this means that it understands how the world works. I'm basically just repeating myself a lot of times, but perhaps using different words will make what I'm trying to say clearer to you.

My definition of awareness only talks about *beliefs* about how the world works. These can be mistaken. I guess the term "understands" was inappropriate after all. So I'll try and avoid the term "understands". When am talking about a "true understanding" I'm not talking about them knowing the real reality - just that the system has developed its own internal framework or representation of the world. This could be highly flawed due to its limited or misperceived experiences.

Well with my definition of awareness this is not the case - either things satisfy the definition or they do not. And for me, consciousness is second-order awareness.

I'd rather say that some things have a greater amount of autonomous (self-directed) intelligence than others. Saying it is a "field" is confusing. "Fields" make me think of magnetic fields where the magnetism is strong at the magnet then gets weaker. So does consciousness also weaken the further away you get from the brain? I don't know what you're saying. Do you believe this?

crocodile deathroll

Decaying matter is chaotic complexity and very poorly organized, and if consciousness does not require organized complexity then are you suggesting even a single electron can be conscious?

excreationist

What if a living human was put in a pool of water one degree above the freezing point of water? They could be pushed underwater so that they drown in the near-freezing water. They would lose consciousness after a while but probably hardly any of there brain would be damaged - the chill would help the neurons to survive. So their body and brain is about as complex as before. So it's not just about complexity - it's also about whether the system is functioning properly or not.

Kharakov

Sure, why not? Have you ever seen an electron? We only have partial knowledge of the average behavior of an electron.

There are probably dynamics to the behaviors of individual electrons that we cannot even begin to understand. Maybe these differences between electrons don't even make a difference when you look at the size difference between a human, or even a biological molecule and an electron.

Decaying matter is apparently chaotic- but the chaos follows the same laws that bind every other piece of matter. The organization of the material is of a much higher order than the simplistic organization of a human brain.

When you compress a file on a computer, you take an orderly file and you make it appear more random, because repetitive patterns can be represented as smaller pieces of the total code. So decaying matter actually has the potential to be of a much higher order of complexity consciousness wise .



In all seriousness though- matter is an integral part of consciousness, in fact they are so closely related, that you can't seperate them. In fact, they might be one and the same. I tend to think the gravitational attraction or the repulsive forces between 2 pieces of matter indicate a fundamental awareness on the part of matter. I see the whole dualistic approach to consciousness and matter as wishful thinking on the part of matter .

Kharakov

I got the idea of fields because of the bioelectrical field of the brain. If you wanted to look at the sum of what made a person tick, it would probably be along the lines of a field as opposed to a quantuum.

</strong>

I think it seems logical that some beings that are conscious probably think of their relationship with the environment that they percieve. I don't think consciousness necessarily has to ponder its relationship with its environment in order to exist. Although the environment of a consciousness is what it ponders (its mind).

Kharakov

For human consciousness that is probably correct. The material might have some type of conscious field even when the focused human field no longer functions (or dysfunctions as the case may be).

Filip Sandor

Hey Kharakov,

I can't help, but wonder, if matter is made of electrons, protons and neutrons, and those are made of electromagnetic waves and those are made of 'space-time' fluctuations... are you saying that pieces of space are conscious?

What if we detached ourselves from the materialistic viewpoint for a second, perhaps even posit the possibility (as modern physicists do) that other dimensions than the four apparent ones exist and consider the possibility that whatever 'it' is that is conscious, may not be a physical thing at all?

Do you really think that's such a crazy idea; as you talk about atoms that may possess 'higher' levels of consciousness than us?

crocodile deathroll

[quote]
Originally posted by excreationist

Quote:

What if a living human was put in a pool of water one degree above the freezing point of water? They could be pushed underwater so that they drown in the near-freezing water. They would lose consciousness after a while but probably hardly any of there brain would be damaged - the chill would help the neurons to survive. So their body and brain is about as complex as before. So it's not just about complexity - it's also about whether the system is functioning properly or not.

Hypothermia would take a lot of the energy processes out of the brain and thus make it less complex. Energy is as much a part of our consciousness as the physical its baryonic material, and the chilling process has drained a lot of that away. You must also take into consideration the brain is more than just a material entity it is also a physical entity. It would be like comparing two identical toys accept one has a flat battery in it <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> and other one it is fully charged up.

excreationist

Ok, then say we got thousands of brains out of fresh corpses and freeze dried them and attached them altogether then starting running electricity or something though it. It might then be even more complex than a brain but that doesn't mean it is complex.

I thought those terms meant the same thing...

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - one is fully functional, the other is not.