intentionally overlooked?

[Dale]

the origins of conscious identity (sole,soul,spirit) have not been
explained by peer-reviewed science yet

the regression of awareness of awareness IS unique and overlooked as an
illusion by determinists, yet determinists have not yet explained the
origin of illusion, does the illogical exist and what effect on the
logical scientific process does it have

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
the origins of conscious identity (sole,soul,spirit) have not been
explained by peer-reviewed science yet
the regression of awareness of awareness IS unique and overlooked as an
illusion by determinists, yet determinists have not yet explained the
origin of illusion, does the illogical exist and what effect on the
logical scientific process does it have

It's hardly been ignored, but for the moment it seems intractable. We
have no real idea what consciousness is, nor what it's for. Indeed, even
proving its existence in an individual is problematic. Each of us only
knows that they themselves are conscious, and that at least one other
person was in the past (the person who first mentioned the concept of
consciousness). All the rest could be philosophical zombies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Sylvia.

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
the origins of conscious identity (sole,soul,spirit) have not been
explained by peer-reviewed science yet
the regression of awareness of awareness IS unique and overlooked as an
illusion by determinists, yet determinists have not yet explained the
origin of illusion, does the illogical exist and what effect on the
logical scientific process does it have

It's hardly been ignored, but for the moment it seems intractable. We
have no real idea what consciousness is, nor what it's for. Indeed, even
proving its existence in an individual is problematic. Each of us only
knows that they themselves are conscious, and that at least one other
person was in the past (the person who first mentioned the concept of
consciousness). All the rest could be philosophical zombies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Sylvia.

gives me some sanity that I am not alone in the question

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 17 May 2015 18:14:34 +1000, Sylvia Else

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
the origins of conscious identity (sole,soul,spirit) have not been
explained by peer-reviewed science yet
the regression of awareness of awareness IS unique and overlooked as an
illusion by determinists, yet determinists have not yet explained the
origin of illusion, does the illogical exist and what effect on the
logical scientific process does it have

It's hardly been ignored, but for the moment it seems intractable.

Consciousness is when you have a stream of symbols embedded in a
system that relates that stream to what that system "wants;" then if
the symbols have a way to access previous parts of the symbol stream
and modify itself and/or other parts of the symbol stream system
based on what the system "wants," and continue the stream of symbols
based on that modification, then you have a conscious entity.

Post by Sylvia Else
We
have no real idea what consciousness is,

Access to previous parts of the computer code in real time by the
computer itself.

Post by Sylvia Else
nor what it's for.

What something wants is based on what would allow it to spread more of
its genes, and as we saw, such desires are an integral part of
conscious behavior.

Post by Sylvia Else
Indeed, even
proving its existence in an individual is problematic. Each of us only
knows that they themselves are conscious, and that at least one other
person was in the past (the person who first mentioned the concept of
consciousness). All the rest could be philosophical zombies.

There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Post by Sylvia Else
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Sylvia.

[Andrew]

Post by Vincent Maycock
Consciousness is when you have a stream of symbols embedded in a
system that relates that stream to what that system "wants;" then if
the symbols have a way to access previous parts of the symbol stream
and modify itself and/or other parts of the symbol stream system
based on what the system "wants," and continue the stream of symbols
based on that modification, then you have a conscious entity.

Interesting, because this is very similar to what goes
on in the bio-system called *protein synthesis*.

http://alturl.com/psxcw, http://alturl.com/aerzb

The system per se is not conscious, but rather
it is definitely the product of consciousness.

The consciousness of our awesome
Creator.

God.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Andrew

Post by Vincent Maycock
Consciousness is when you have a stream of symbols embedded in a
system that relates that stream to what that system "wants;" then if
the symbols have a way to access previous parts of the symbol stream
and modify itself and/or other parts of the symbol stream system
based on what the system "wants," and continue the stream of symbols
based on that modification, then you have a conscious entity.

Interesting, because this is very similar to what goes
on in the bio-system called *protein synthesis*.
http://alturl.com/psxcw, http://alturl.com/aerzb
The system per se is not conscious, but rather
it is definitely the product of consciousness.
The consciousness of our awesome
Creator.
God.

He could be a philosophical zombie god.

Sylvia.

[Vincent Maycock]

Post by Andrew

Post by Vincent Maycock
Consciousness is when you have a stream of symbols embedded in a
system that relates that stream to what that system "wants;" then if
the symbols have a way to access previous parts of the symbol stream
and modify itself and/or other parts of the symbol stream system
based on what the system "wants," and continue the stream of symbols
based on that modification, then you have a conscious entity.

Interesting, because this is very similar to what goes
on in the bio-system called *protein synthesis*.

It's only superficially similar. Although the genome does modify
itself, it's lacking in the appropriate sequence effects (the effects
of mutations are usually independent of where they are in the genome,
so they won't form a basis for "memory," which is an important part of
consciousness) that consciousness has.

And the appropriate time interval to respond to mutations that have
occurred elsewhere in the genome "in a timely manner" is too large to
correspond to anything consciousness.

So instead of "remembering" that it needs to fix something that's gone
wrong in the genome or in its more observable counterpart, (the
creature's physical structure), the genome has to wait until some
random mutations appear, after which the genome can then leave the
mutations that don't fix anything (or even cause harm) to be sifted
out of the population by natural selection.

Post by Andrew
http://alturl.com/psxcw, http://alturl.com/aerzb
The system per se is not conscious, but rather
it is definitely the product of consciousness.

Rather, the product of natural selection.

The similarity between how the genome behaves and consciousness
behaves is only superficial, and if it weren't your argument would
still seem pretty weak: "Something that looks like consciousness must
have been caused by consciousness."

I've never heard of such a thing: "things that look conscious must
have been caused by consciousness." ???!!

What nonsense.

Post by Andrew
The consciousness of our awesome
Creator.
God.

[Andrew]

Post by Vincent Maycock

Post by Andrew

Post by Vincent Maycock
Consciousness is when you have a stream of symbols embedded in a
system that relates that stream to what that system "wants;" then if
the symbols have a way to access previous parts of the symbol stream
and modify itself and/or other parts of the symbol stream system
based on what the system "wants," and continue the stream of symbols
based on that modification, then you have a conscious entity.

Interesting, because this is very similar to what goes
on in the bio-system called *protein synthesis*.

It's only superficially similar. Although the genome does modify
itself, it's lacking in the appropriate sequence effects (the effects
of mutations are usually independent of where they are in the genome,
so they won't form a basis for "memory," which is an important part of
consciousness) that consciousness has.

There must be memory if DNA keeps reproducing itself exactly.

Post by Vincent Maycock
And the appropriate time interval to respond to mutations that have
occurred elsewhere in the genome "in a timely manner" is too large to
correspond to anything consciousness.
So instead of "remembering" that it needs to fix something that's gone
wrong in the genome or in its more observable counterpart, (the
creature's physical structure), the genome has to wait until some
random mutations appear, after which the genome can then leave the
mutations that don't fix anything (or even cause harm) to be sifted
out of the population by natural selection.

Post by Andrew
http://alturl.com/psxcw, http://alturl.com/aerzb
The system per se is not conscious, but rather
it is definitely the product of consciousness.

Rather, the product of natural selection.

No, that is a deception. If not please cite.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Vincent Maycock
There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Well, it seems likely that they don't, and I don't spend my life
suspecting that the people around me are zombies.

But that's a far cry from proving that they're not, and in the field of
consciousness research, we need an objective way of determining whether
someone is conscious. So far, we have nothing.

Sylvia.

[Nam Nguyen]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Vincent Maycock
There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Well, it seems likely that they don't, and I don't spend my life
suspecting that the people around me are zombies.
But that's a far cry from proving that they're not, and in the field of
consciousness research, we need an objective way of determining whether
someone is conscious. So far, we have nothing.

Herein lies the most enigmatic self-reference of science: the concept of
consciouness can't be adequately defined, without the definition being
relativised, pegged, against an existing consciousness.

[Nam Nguyen]

Post by Nam Nguyen

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Vincent Maycock
There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Well, it seems likely that they don't, and I don't spend my life
suspecting that the people around me are zombies.
But that's a far cry from proving that they're not, and in the field of
consciousness research, we need an objective way of determining whether
someone is conscious. So far, we have nothing.

Herein lies the most enigmatic self-reference of science: the concept of
consciouness can't be adequately defined, without the definition being
relativised, pegged, against an existing consciousness.

Ditto for AI.

[Nam Nguyen]

Post by Nam Nguyen

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Vincent Maycock
There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Well, it seems likely that they don't, and I don't spend my life
suspecting that the people around me are zombies.
But that's a far cry from proving that they're not, and in the field of
consciousness research, we need an objective way of determining whether
someone is conscious. So far, we have nothing.

Herein lies the most enigmatic self-reference of science: the concept of
consciousness can't be adequately defined, without the definition being
relativised, pegged, against an existing consciousness.

Toward the above, we could try these two definitions.

=====> Physics centric definition.

A consciousness-entity is an automaton of which the input, output
would mimic the behaviors of a typical human being.

=====> Mathematical abstraction kind of definition.

A consciousness-system is a first order logic formal system
some of the theorems of which can be interpreted as describing
a first order logic formal system formalization in which there's
an undecidable formula.

[Nam Nguyen]

Post by Nam Nguyen

Post by Nam Nguyen

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Vincent Maycock
There is no reason to think philosophical zombies exist, so it's best
to conclude that they don't.

Well, it seems likely that they don't, and I don't spend my life
suspecting that the people around me are zombies.
But that's a far cry from proving that they're not, and in the field of
consciousness research, we need an objective way of determining whether
someone is conscious. So far, we have nothing.

Herein lies the most enigmatic self-reference of science: the concept of
consciousness can't be adequately defined, without the definition being
relativised, pegged, against an existing consciousness.

Toward the above, we could try these two definitions.
=====> Physics centric definition.
A consciousness-entity is an automaton of which the input, output
would mimic the behaviors of a typical human being.

Like telling a joke.

Post by Nam Nguyen
=====> Mathematical abstraction kind of definition.
A consciousness-system is a first order logic formal system
some of the theorems of which can be interpreted as describing
a first order logic formal system formalization in which there's
an undecidable formula.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
the origins of conscious identity (sole,soul,spirit) have not been
explained by peer-reviewed science yet
the regression of awareness of awareness IS unique and overlooked as an
illusion by determinists, yet determinists have not yet explained the
origin of illusion, does the illogical exist and what effect on the
logical scientific process does it have

Some questions to ponder.

Does consciousness arise in any sufficient large neural network even if
it is completely deterministic?

If not, and randomness is required, how does nature distinguish between
genuinely randomness, and pseudo randomness (which would make the
network deterministic)?

Is there a threshold in complexity for consciousness to arise, or does
it arise in some degree in any network that has the other necessary (but
unknown) characteristics? In that regard, it certainly looks as if there
is some level of consciousness in lower animals - our pets, for example
(even if they lack the cognition to realise that they're conscious) -
but how about mosquitos?

Has consciousness been selected for by evolution? If so, how?

Are all of these questions fundamentally misconceived?

Of course, we don't have answers to any of these, including the last. It
may be that consciousness really is intractable, and that we'll never
have answers.

Sylvia.