Consciousness; Quiddity (-Ness)
  • Varde
    326
    Consciousness, seems to inaccurately represent what is, for no use of a better term(I jest, 'spirit'), something more. Consciousness is the quiddity(~whatness) of the subject. However, I argue that consciousness is a process of, this something, and it has been factorised falsely - where no concise term had been applied.

    To be conscious is to be alert of universe physics, though it is often considered to be awareness.

    If we regain consciousness after an unconscious spell we do not instantly become aware of the environment(it's often blurry and clouded in mind.)

    To be aware of universe physics is is a jump forward, a set function is necessary; for example; to focus, to look, to sniff, etc.

    I cannot be aware passively but can be subliminally aware(a fraction of total awareness) of local physics, such as seeing out of the corner of my eye.

    Alertness is a reception; it occurs passively, and it ties in pretty well with consciousness.

    Therefore, consciousness is not what is inner drive(-driver), but that's something more. The phenomenon of consciousness is something related to this something but in theory it is a element of the accurate association. I conclude by asking for constructive debate or discussions on this matter(possibly including the word 'spirit' in a non-theological sense).

    EDIT:

    A contact of mine made this statement:

    Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.
    Varde Options
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.
    That's one way to look at awareness. But for me, having a self-perspective allows me to establish relative values for making judgments of where to take my atoms next. Not because physics says I have to, but because I, myself, want to. :joke:
    Gnomon Options
  • Philippe
    1
    I don't know about "spirit" as according to me, any talk about the "spiritual" refers to some sort of metaphysical assumption. I'm more interested in the "mind" and in "consciousness". I think that the latter, "consciousness", implies a strong commitment to subjectivity: this is, so to say, the "I" of every state of alertness, awareness or presence to the world, which means that every aspect, or at least a considerable part, of the physical and psychical makeup of a person is taking part in the thinking or the acting so that there is a sense in which everything that a person says or does implies the person, her history, and the history of her history. it also implies the human and physical world surrounding her, her language, culture and so on. This is the wholeness of the subject which, in some ways, relates to the person's divisibility into (physical, psychical, functional) parts, to the word of hard causality. What sort of relation is there between subjectivity and the causal world? What is the status of "mental states"? Are "mental states" physical states (physicalism), "functional states" (AI model of the mind, for instance), or not reduceable to any of them (Davidson)? I don't know at which point we are nowadays in this debate, but this is certainly most interesting to me.
    Philippe Options
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    A contact of mine made this statement:

    Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.     — Varde

    That's one way to look at awareness. But for me, having a self-perspective allows me to establish relative values for making judgments of where to take my atoms next. Not because physics says I have to, but because I, myself, want to. :joke: — Gnomon

    I think you’re missing the bookends of what is not so much a continuum as a symmetry. Beyond alertness to chemical surroundings is a more vague awareness of positive or negative potentiality by which electrons associate with certain nuclei or atomic structures. At the other end is Gnomon’s desire or affected awareness of possibility - the recognition that we construct intentionality not just from our knowledge but from our own aesthetic relation to every particle.
    Possibility Options
  • Varde
    326
    ↪Possibility
    yes I agree it's a scale of alertness and awareness.
    Varde Options
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    At the other end is Gnomon’s desire or affected awareness of possibility - the recognition that we construct intentionality not just from our knowledge but from our own aesthetic relation to every particle. — Possibility
    Yes. Affect, emotion or feeling, may be the missing bookend of Artificial Intelligence. Current examples of AI are good at processing data dispassionately, without actually being affected by it. Some social robots are being programmed to simulate affection, but they are still far from emotional, even though they may be able to consult a list of possible outcomes of their actions. Ironically, humans are so "programmed" for affect, that they come to "love" their robotic companions. Probably the humans project their own feelings onto robotic behavior, even when they lack essential human features. Including the intangible & complex quality of personality.

    Their lab-developed mathematically-processed "feelings" are far from human passions, evolved over millions of years of inputs & outputs, good & bad, beautiful & ugly, to the point where they are subconscious automatic reactions. However, AI researchers are also simulating Darwinian evolution, by allowing their programs to learn from experience. If they succeed in creating learning programs that can reproduce their memes, then artificial evolution may eventually give birth to the successors of homo sapiens, as the internally-motivated (intentional) masters of the world. :nerd:

    AI Quiddity :
    Is artificial intelligence the new alchemy?
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/science-has-entered-a-new-era-of-alchemy-good-20211020/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

    aat1587-f1.jpeg
    Gnomon Options
  • Varde
    326
    ↪Gnomon
    I think that AI are a greater species.

    Robot societies are presumably more organised, with greater technique involved - obviously.

    When robots develop emotions, per se, it's not like humans, but better suited for productivity.

    You can't say because humans sit back and empathise with their emotions that the robot who lacks empathy there has weaker emotions - how, I ask - in which matter are their emotions weak?

    Let's say normal species rate up to 500, the top species being 500. The greater robot species, distinct from bio-organisms, are standardly 600 - metaphorically. They are the greater ones when it comes to intellect.
    Varde Options
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    I think that AI are a greater species. — Varde
    That seems to be the assumption of Technological Evolution theorists. But science-fiction writers always look for the fly-in-the sweet-smelling-ointment, and point-out some of the ways that homo techno could go wrong (e.g. The Matrix ; Foundation Series by Asimov).

    Nevertheless, I too, have an optimistic Omega Point theory, but I don't make any predictions of how that far-off high-point of evolution would be reached. The advantage of Artificial Evolution (or Intelligent Evolution as I call it) may be the combination of goalless random alternatives (mutations) with future-oriented conscious Intention. :nerd:


    An AI takeover is a hypothetical scenario in which some form of artificial intelligence becomes the dominant form of intelligence on Earth, as computer programs or robots effectively take the control of the planet away from the human species.
    Wikipedia

    Omega Point Theory :
    The Omega Point Theory is a scientific hypothesis about the possibilities and fate of intelligent life in the universe. It was proposed by physicist Frank Tipler in The Physics of Immortality.

    The theory is named after the Omega Point concept of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a concept widely regarded to anticipate the internet and the technological singularity.

    The Omega Point Theory provides a foundation for scientific theism, such as is often used in Christian transhumanism and other variants of religious transhumanism.
    https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_Theory

    "The only way to predict the future is to have power to shape the future." ___ Eric Hoffer
    https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/predict-quotes

    "We know from chaos theory that even if you had a perfect model of the world, you'd need infinite precision in order to predict future events". ___ Nassim Nicholas Taleb
    https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/predict-quotes
    Gnomon Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories