Anyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating.
— Alkis Piskas
I'm making your life difficult??:grin: — Patterner

"grin" It may sound difficult but my "filtering" is an automatic process: it means just ignoring external refs, thus actually simplifying things. "smile:

Indeed. I often quote others when they say something I agree with. I believe the more ways a thought is expressed, the more likely it is someone else will understand it. — Patterner

I'm not sure about that. If the external source talks about concepts and theories and has no practical value, it might even be worse as far as undersnading is concerned. As I see it, if one wants to make one's points clear and well understood, one must off practical values for them, how they are applied to reality and life, things with which one can identify, recognize as actually existing or happening or functioning, etc. And this can be achieved mainly through practical examples.

I don't know which post of yours provides a specific definition. — Patterner

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859927
"Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality."(https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/)

I have never seen a definition of panpsychism, or even consciousness, that I think is absolute. — Patterner

Of course, there are no absolute definitions for anything. One has to look in the various definitions what is the central element, point or characteristic. In the case of Panpsychism, this is that "matter posseses a mind" . In some others, it's that "matter is conscious", and so on.

If someone else's definition says all things, animate or inanimate, have a mind, I disagree. I do not consider what I am calling proto-consciousness to be a mind. — Patterner

OK. So, you have your own definition of P, connected to the idea of "proto-consciousness". But you must realize that it is not what traditional P and panpsychists believe. (I just googled "proto-consciousness" and I found seome special references about it. I might.)
Otherwise, I fully accept and welcome your views on the subject. In fact, I thank you for bringing up a totally new subject for me! (I'll learn more about it in time.)

I think a mind must have characteristics/abilities that proto-consciousness does not. — Patterner

Most probably, but I can't really tell, since I don't know enough about proto-consciousness.
What I can tell though, is that mind and consciousness are totally different and separate things.

Second, calling particles "physical" is problematic. When we call a particle "physical," we are only referring to its physical properties. ... — Patterner

I really appreciate your endeavor in describing your theory. However, I can't follow it, since you are walking on hill and I my lungs and feet don't help me any more to accompany you. :smile:
a ground that I a terra incognita for me! :smile:

I'm really sorry about this, because how she a very strong willingnes and tenacity on this trip.
I hope at least that someone else in here will take advantage of your messages to me and discuss the subject with you in a much better way than myself.

If you are not interested in that expanded view of the topic, you are free to pass over the links without clicking. — Gnomon

Certainly. But my comment was certainly not meant to invalidate your references. I never said or hold in general that references are useless. That would be totally silly. And I often consult them. Only that in some subjects, e.g. related to consciousness and mind, about which I have read and listened to tons of descriptions and views, and which I know very well --I have worked with and on mind for years-- I only need to hear and discuss about another member's own opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. So, I prefer spend my time in fruitful exchanges with other people. Besides, I believe this is the main purpose of TPF. Reading and discussing books, references and articles is also included of course, but I consider it of secondary importance. I may be wrong, I don't know. Maybe it's only what I expect from it ...

BTW, since you are talking about "experts" -- on the field, have you ever considered to know about what philosophers of the East have to say about consiousness and the mind? We are living in the Western culture, being fed with Western philosophical values in all our life, and we forget that there are other views about crucial philosophical issues in the other part of the world. I have escaped from that trap a lot lot time ago, by studying Eastern philosophy in parallel with the Western one. Only in this way one can have an "expanded view of the topic" that you say. Otherwise, one;s view is restricted.
How expanding can my view be if I'm looking with one eye only?

Some people would consider all posts on this forum "wasted time", because they have little or no interest in Philosophy or Science. — Gnomon

You are right. Esp. because it certainly applies to me. "smile:
But think about this: When a TPF member launches a discussion, is it usually with a purpose in mind to know what other, the "experts" have to say about te topic, the subject? If the one needed that, one could simply "ask" the Web or read books. But you cannot discuss with the Web or books, can you?
So, the OP obviously asks for the opinion from others, something which the OP often expresses explicitly at the end of their message. And this is more evident when the OPs describe their own position on the subject. And in the majority of the cases, without any reference to external sources.

quote="Gnomon;860132"]The science & technical stuff is not my primary interest, but it serves as support structures for the worldview that I am building in my brain.[/quote]
I know. But if you want to build a comprehensive worldview, don't you think it's a good idea to leave for a while the "West" space within which your philosophical quest is usually confined, as large as that space may be, and look also to the "East"? If not for anything else, but just for things to pique your curiosity? Although, I'm certain that doing that, you will read and hear things that will not only satisfy your curiosity, but will open for you new doors in the world of philosophy.

Note: My views on mind and consciousness, as on a lot of other subjects discussed in this place and elsewhere, are not based on Eastern philosophy, but they are certainlly infuenced by it. They are products of my "expanded" worldview, which will continue to expand, as long as I am able to think effectively and evolve as a human being.

I'm not emotionally "against" Panpsychism ; it serves a purpose. I just consider it a primitive way of understanding how immaterial Life/ Consciousness*1 could exist in a material world. — Gnomon

Why being "not emotionally" against it? Isn't just "not against" it enough? :smile
The question I think is whether we can make a solid, well-grounded hypothesis about the matter being conscious. Be it in QM terms, as I said, or any other theory of Physics. Or even in terms of the structure of the brain. I wouldn't care what. Anything that could indicate that matter is conscious. Otherwise what does it serve as a way of undertanding how consciousness could exist in the material world?
Wel already have cartoons in which objects are not only conscious but also quite alive and even behave much like humans. :grin:

The other ancient worldview, Materialism (Atomism), had no answer for that metaphysical question. — Gnomon

Most probably not. I hate Materialism. (Ooops! Here's myself feeling emotional about a philosophical system! :grin:)
Well, what could one expect from Materialism to tell us regarding consciousness? It's what its main supporters, scientists, esp. neuroscientists, say about it: that it is a product of and resides in the brain.
So, we can skip that too.

Panpsychism (all sentient) is similar to Spiritualism (all divine), in that it assumes that matter emerged from a mind-like or life-like progenitor, instead of the other way around. — Gnomon

This is true. Only I wouldn't reduce Spiritualism to "divine". It holds that spirit exists separately from the body and that it is the only reality. But this is not new and it is not only Spiritualism that believes it, but a lot of philosophers, who hold, e.g. that consciousness is the only reality and that everything exists in it. And no one of them uses the term "Spiritualism" or even use the very common word "spirit". Most probably because they are both regarded with contempt. Yet, the word "spirit" refers actually to the "non-physical" part of a human, and "spiritual" to a "non-physical" nature, attributes, elements, etc. Things about which a lot of philosophers talk. See, that's why I avoid using "isms". They are connected with misconceptions and biases.

Enformationism updates all of those pre-scientific postulations, with inputs from Quantum & Information Theories. — Gnomon

This is an interesting concept and worldview. I only know a little about it.
And see, QM keep coming in my away all too often. Yet, I have never indulged in this subject either. But I have a feeling about it.

Sorry. I can't satisfy your request for "no references". — Gnomon

Not glad about it, but I can accept it.

See, the reason why I'm often asking about more personal views and less external references, is because 1) I believe that if someone's reality on a subject is well established, independently of where one has built it from or how, one does not need to refer to external sources in a discussion. Otherwise, it may be considered even "appeal to authority", which used to persuade the intended others of one's statements or views. 2) In the majority of the cases in which I do read external references proposed by someone in a discusstion, the result is wasted time.

But, if you are willing to slog through an amateur philosophical thesis ... — Gnomon

I see here some invalidation of personal views. Because in here we are all amateurs and it seems that our personal views are not good or enough. And why a professional or expert vew is necessarily better? Do you agree with all the philosophers or known personalities about what they say? Of course not. Most probably with only few of them. Isn't it true?

I have not heard any panpsychist say any inanimate object has a minds. — Patterner

But I just gave you a reference about that, the definition of "Panpsychism". Do you reject it, as well as all references with a similar description, on the ground that you have not heard any panpsychist say that any inanimate object has a mind? Or do you have another definition of P according to which objects are not conscious or do not have consciousness?

Although I guess the exact definition of "mind" might need to be agreed upon. — Patterner

Yes, we already talked about that.

You can get a pretty good idea of my own ideas and position on the subject in the last post I made before that one, looks like eleven posts before it. — Patterner

You make my life difficult, Patterner. :smile: Couldn't you give me just the link of that post?
Anyway, I guess is https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859760, in which you responded to @AmadeusD, right? But you are bringing up extrenal referenses there too (Skrbina, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, "Journey of the Mind" book).
Anyway #2, I have "filtered" that post, keeping only what you youself are stating.

So, let's see ...

Re "Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is a property of matter called proto-consciousness. A mental property, rather than a physical.":
OK, but how can something physical have a property that is not physical, call it "mind" or whatever else?
I believe you start with a hypothesis that cannot stand, it's not grounded. You are trying to build a theory on the air or from air. Anyway.

Re "A particle with proto-consciousness (if there is such a thing) would be indistinguishable from one without it (if there is such a thing). It’s just a building block.":
Now, you doubt about your basic assumption, i.e. the existence of something you have initially postulated as existing. And what do you mean by a "building block"? Is that something physical or non-physical? Is the particle with proto-consciousness such "building block"?

Re "A rock has... quite a few particles. All of which are experiencing their instantaneous memory-less moments.":
What do you mean by "memory-less moments"? I suppose you are implicitly, silently adding another hypothesis or postulate, which is the existence of something called "memory-less moments" and which is experienced by particles. That is, you postulate that particles have a memory but there are moments that this is absent. Like a person who suffers from amnesia after a hard blow on the head. Right?

Re "all in all, there's not enough going on to raise "instantaneous memory-less moments" up to something more.":
How is "instantaneous memory-less moments" raised?

I believe, the whole scheme lacks something very basic: A definition or description of "memory" in the context or level of a particle. That is, what does memotry mean for a particle? What kind of "memory" do particles have? Do you see what I mean?

I have to discontinue my reading of your theory here. I can't follow it. Too many links are missing from the chain.

A final question: Is all this an attempt of solving the HPofC, which is the subject of this topic?

Thanks anyway for responding to my request of your own position on the subject.

I was thinking of the problem is the most simple way in mathematics. Usually our models are mathematical, so the simple model would be y=f(x) where the function, the algorithm, here is the thing that explains the change, right? — ssu

Well, I can't tell. It's too general. Even after your elaboration of it, it's too theoretical for me. I love Math but not so muach on a theoretical level.

The problem is that when the aggregate of economics decisions of all players in the economy make is affected by the model itself that tries to explain there actions, where then is objectivity? — ssu

Right. I have taken a two-semester course of Economics in college and I loved it. Everything was very clear to me. Everything made sense. A few years later, I couldn't explain anything regarding economic situations, like relationships between unemployment and inflation, inflation and bank interest rates, the effects os stock markets and all that stuff. Nothing made sense to me anymore! :smile:

Only in some situations you can find a solution. But if the feedback loop is self-referrential and negative, there is no answer. — ssu

Of course.

And lastly, I think it's obvious that self-reference plays a crucial part in consciousness. — ssu

If you mean self-consciousness, or better self-awareness, I believe yes, it plays a crucial role. Esp. in distiguishing humans from other beings.

I have never heard of anyone why thinks a stone can have a mind. — Patterner

What about a ball? Or a pencil? :smile:
"Stone" was just an example, Patterner. Any object would do. And surely you must have heard about matter having consciousness in a panpsychist context.

"Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality."(https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/)
Isn't "stone" an object, a thing?

But the problem with this is not whether objects can be considered as having a mind or consciousness, but, as (I think) I said, that P does not describe what it considers mind and consciousness to be, what do these things actually mean to it, at least not in my knowledge.
"Panpsychism does not necessarily attempt to define “mind” (although many panpsychists do this), nor
does it necessarily explain how mind relates to the objects that possess it." (Same source.)
So, we actually cannot make any kind of valid judgement about the panpsychist views, can we?

panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts. — Patterner

No one speaks about thoughts. Even in humans, this is another process, outside consciousness. If we speak about consciousness in objects, we have to ask simple: "Do objects perceive?" If we can prove they do, then all its fine and I will personally support Panpsychism. :simle:

Of course in human beings consciousness is a sophisticated thing — Patterner

Again, we don't speak about the quality or level of consciousness between humans and objects or even the differences between human and object consciousness. That would have a meaning if first, as I said above, it is proven that objects percieve, i.e. can be conscious, have any consiousness at all.

Maybe I miss some basic in all this. Which I don't think I do.
On the other hand, maybe there's an aspect of matter --e.g. at the level of quantum particles or fields-- that justifies the panpsychist vews that can be considered as "perception". Although I can't see how even this could change anything ...

In this Ted Talk, Chalmers says: Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. — Patterner

I know he does. I also believe that he is responsible for the widely spread HPofC, which I have called eadlier in the discussion of this topic as an "illusionary" problem, since it doesn't really exist in terms of its description.

***

You have brought in the discussion quite a few experts. Good. But I would like better to hear about your own ideas and position on the subject.

[Re Where does the simile "no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth" refer to] That we are looking for a certain mechanism in how knowledge works. Just like driving on the surface of a planet can get you anywhere on the surface of the planet, but not to another planet. — ssu

Well, I undestood that in the first place. But what that has to do with the current topic, "Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?" Do you mean that the problem is about or has to do with going in circles or some kind of a vicious circle? Or maybe that scientists look at the subject of consciousness only from its surface, without being able to look "inside" it? The second one alludes also to the "black box" you are talking about.
Well, that can be the case too, but my undestanding of the problem is much simpler: they just look in the wrong place. Which is the brain. Because consciousness is not to be found in it. That's why I say that the HPoC does not actually exist. It's an illusory problem.

Earlier it lead people to think in a mechanically deterministic World, the Clockwork Universe and people simply to think that if we know all the laws of nature and all the revelant information, then we can extrapolate everything and make a correct model of the future. — ssu

Nicely put.

The problem is of course that we are part of that universe and so is our model, that also has an impact on reality. Thus we cannot make an objective, computable model of that reality. — ssu

There's an arguable point here: that "we are part of the universe". And it is were "dualists" and "non-dualists" separate themselves. (The quotation marks on the latter two terms mean that I use them very rarely and loosely, only for description purposes.)

The problem that we use the models that we have, which obviously aren't so good. After all, if they would be, there wouldn't be any discussion even in this Forum. — ssu

I agree.

If there would be a clear answer, someone would just remind the questioner to read 1.0 logic or math or even a book about philosophy! — ssu

:smile: No, it's certainly not textbook material. :smile:

I think the reason is that our logic that we use assumes clear, yet consciousness (just as learning) is all about subjectivity.The subjective and subjectivity cannot be put into a objective, computational model or algorithm. — ssu

Certainly. Tell that to scientists, esp. the neurophysicists and the neurobiologists.

That's why we end using the metaphor of a 'black box'. — ssu

:up:

Panpsychism*1 & Panexperientialism typically postulate that Conscious Experience is a fundamental element of nature, implying that it existed prior to the emergence of Brains. — Gnomon

Why, is there an "Unconscious Experience"? :smile:
Yes, I know about panpsychism. And I'm totally against it. Simply, I cannot imagine how a stone can have a "mind". Of course, it depends how one defines "mind". Some even define it in QM terms. I have heard a lot of such a stuff and they are just unreal for me. I 'm, closer to Science view that the mind is a product of the brain or even is identified with the brain --something that is already unreal to me-- than matter having a mind.

It also suggests that the Cosmos as a whole may be conscious of its own internal events. — Gnomon

Besides that I don't know what does P conceive the terms "conscious" and "consiousness", things tlike "it may be conscious" are not good for me. Let's go on ...

Such notions are similar to my own thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon

Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgable on the subject. But I'm willing to know about your thesis.

Also, I'm not good in Physics, not knowledgeable enough to examine things like Entropy, etc. In fact, I was never really interested about them in my life. The evidence of this is that I have never read a book of Physics just for fun or by interest. Well, except Capra's "The Tao of Physics". :smile:

His [Shannon's] definition works well for non-conscious machines, but not for humans with ideas & feelings of their own. — Gnomon

Why, are there "conscious machines"?
How can someone evaliuate such propositions when one cannot accept that matter is conscious in the first place? It's a "lost case", isn't it?

***

Gnomon, I have an idea: Tell me about or give me a link to your thesis. I will be glad to read it, on the condition that there are no references to external sources in it that I will have to read in order to undestand or confirm your points.

Not quite. I delineated sentience from consciousness (or that was my intention). Because your definition to my mind (and maybe RogueAIs) doesn’t rise to sentience and therefore there would be nothing it’s like to be a vft on that account. I can’t see the problem. The Nagel line was a useful way of outlining why I see a disconnect between conscious experience viz. sentience and consciousness per se. It was about what you’d said. — AmadeusD

That's much better! Why didn't you talk about that in the first place?
Anyway, thanks for coming back with something that can be discussed about. :smile:

Now, I don't know what does sentience mean to you. You can tell me next time.
Until then, let's see how Dictionary.com defines "sentient" (since "sentience" refers to it) as: "having the power of perception by the senses; conscious[/i]. Oxford Language Dictionary (used by Google) defines it as "able to perceive or feel things". And so on,
So, basically "sentience" is perception and, by extension, consiousness. And it applies fully to my expanded definition and my overall description of consciousness. In fact, I often use the word "sentient" myself, when I say e.g. "consiousness is a characteristic of sentient beings".

Does all this satisfy your query about "sentience?

You defined well from where consciousness comes from — ssu

OK, but I also said that the term was not used in the meaning is used meaning today. Which is what we are trying to define.

I think we have a problem just with defining how knowledge works — ssu

Certainly. Describing the mechanics of this kind of concepts is very hard and in some cases, like with consciousness, even impossible.

which in my view comes to the OP's point of no matter how much drive around the moon, you won't get to Earth. — ssu

Interesting example-metaphor, but where are you referring to exactly? :smile:

I think we have still a lot to understand in the basics as our understanding of things like causality is still quite mechanistic. — ssu

I guess so. Interesting thought too. Causes can be often hidden or hard to trace or multiple.

This comes in a lot of examples where our models end up with a 'black box' where the issue consciousness happens. — ssu

It's true. A "black box": I liked that too. I think you are very successful with your similes! :up:

We're talking about sentience though, which is why i directly referenced sentience and it's constitution. I need not have used the Nagel line, it's just a great encapsulation. — AmadeusD

Well, you did use Nagel line. In fact, your whole message was based on it. Not only that, you referred me to @RogueAI 's question "Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?" on the same subject. As if my whole message was based on or built around it.

I presented a good definition of "consciousness" and supported it quite well, I believe. I expected that at least it would be argued about. But not overshadowed by irrelevant and unimportant things.

I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. — Gnomon

I see. I know. That's why I said that it might take some time. But you don't need to do it perfectly.
Anyway, I brought up this little "experiment" to show that besides having a clear idea that consciousness is perception and experiencing --without any "additives" --like thinking and conceiving-- one can actually experience it. Indeed, I can't see a better way than this.

When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? — Gnomon

No. It isn't good for me. :smile: When you are on the verge of unconsciousness, it means you are semi-conscious. So we cannot speak of pure or full consciousness anymore. Othewise, semi-consciousness and even unconsiousness are still states of consciounsess, only that they are disordered, dysfunctional. It's like when a leg is broken: it is still a leg, only that it is dysfunctional.

How is it different from a Vegetative State? :smile: — Gnomon

It isn't! :grin:
But in a VS, if you are lucky, you can still hear and respond to some level! (As scientists say)

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . . — Gnomon

Brain scans reveal which 'vegetative' patients are alert, trapped in bodies

Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception? — Gnomon

Right. Kinesthesia is a good example. No conception.

Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? — Gnomon

I can't tell. If I were a Fly Trap I would. :grin:
Oherwise, this is a good example too. In fact, not only plants are brainless: a lot of creatures or, better, organisms are too. Which can make one ask --but not me-- why does science negclet this fact and stiil tries to maintain that consciousness --an basic feature of all life-- is created and resides in the brain? Well, one answer is because they think of "consciousness" and "awareness" as something different than what they actually are. Another one is because they can't accept their ignorance on the subject. Still another one is that can't accept "experience" as a hard evidence. Still another ...

Thanks for bringing this up, anyway.

The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness" — Gnomon

Certainly. I just took it up and expanded it, because of my linguistic tendencies (I'm overplaying sometimes! :smile:)

here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"* — Gnomon

Well, the very common expression "I'm aware of", carrying the meaning of "I know", is an unfortunate case, a bad selection of the word "aware". And because it is so common in our everyday language, it is responsible for the misconception or even no conception people have about "awareness" and "being aware".

About your "tabulation": Wow! You keep sending me material to study! I hope I won't have to give exams on all that! :grin:
But I admit it is quite interesting. Dates are missing but it's OK, time is relative. :smile:
I liked of course esp. No. 7 "Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)"
About No. 8 "Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)": I have a different idea about the term "brain" in relation to "mind", as I think I already pointed out,

Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities — Gnomon

Of course.

(Re: "perception" and "conception") That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. — Gnomon

Sure. I know well that "common" often means "misconcetion" or "ignorance", as I mentioned earlier on.

3. Concepts of Consciousness — Gnomon

Well, not my cup of tea. Too many concepts involved.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ — Gnomon

I will chack this, in time.

Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) — Gnomon

Glad to hear that! :smile:

but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon. — Gnomon

Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! :smile:

I do not believe this to be a very widely view of what sentience consists in. My understanding is there must be feeling in the sense of "what it is like to be.." involved for sentience to be observed. — AmadeusD

It was my reply to @Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness.

Godssake. What'is with you guys? Just FORGET ABOUT MY REFERENCE TO NAGEL. I don't embrace his views. Nor am I willing to defend them. My undestanding of consiousness has nothing to do with his views. If you have read my whole message to @Gnomon, you would have understood that.

Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap? — RogueAI

I can't even know what it is like to be another person! :smile:

Now, this is not serious. And I wonder how come you are asking me this, why have you chosen something unimportant, just a comment I said about Nagel's description of "what it is like", as if it was the main point of my message to @Gnomon ...

So, what about arguing about my main point, which is the definition of conssiousness?

The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. — Gnomon

I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help.

And, since I'm talking about etymologies and references to ancient languages, let's see what my big dictionary of the ancient Greek language says about "consciousness, which is "συνείδησις" (syneidisis) in Greek. Like in Latin, the word is formed by "syn-" (= with) and "eidisis" (= knowdlege). However, the definition that it offers has nothing to do with "with" (sharing). It means "internal knowledge, awareness of one's own thoughts". The second part is quite interesting, because it is what I have already described in my "expanded" definition of consciousness reffering to our interior world!
Yet, I wouldn't take that either as something useful, since I have never read any ancient Greek philosopher talking about "conscousness". The concept of conciousness has been developed much later, in the 18th century.

I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into public packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture. — Gnomon

OK.

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon

Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.?

Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination. — Gnomon

Certainly.

I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). — Gnomon

I think we have already agreed on this.

For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. — Gnomon

Certainly, conciousness is connected to the Self. When we observe things we can be aware that it is us who are observing things, but we usually don't. The "switch" to self awareness at any moment is instant, almost automatic.

From my post above: "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, we can say that. :smile:

Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. — Gnomon

Of course they are not "conscious" based on your meaning of conciousness, since you add to it "thinking". So, you can see that by adding elements to the meaning of pure consciousness, makes it fail in its application to all cases. By adding sugar to straight coffee, makes the it not usable for diabetics. :smile:

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon

I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile:

[Re "I can be aware that I am alive"] I don't know how you mean this. I am not usually "aware" that I'm alive. I am when I think about it, as I am now. And if anyone ever asked, I'd suddenly be thinking about it. — Patterner

Certainly, you are not usually "aware" that you are alive. It would be quite annoying and useless, wouldn't it? But you can be id you want, right?

To paraphrase our friend Descartes, "I am aware, therefore I exist."
(Which could be what he actually meant, since thinking is not part of consiousness/awareness. It follows it. But this is all he could think and use as a concept, since at that time, the terms and concepts of "consciousness" and "awareness" had not been developed yet.)

I don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times. — Patterner

I don't think you can even if you want to. And fortunately enough, it's not of any use. But it is of great use when you are in a highly emotional state, feeling lost, etc. If you are able to get aware of yourself and the situation you are involved in, you can get rid of that state faster and get your marbles back. Don't you?

I think our thoughts and emotions are created within us. Even if prompted by something external, such as you reading "4+2=", which you perceive, you create the thought "6" on your own. You didn't turn your head and perceive "6" written somewhere. — Patterner

Well, if you start interpreting the object --shape or form-- of a number that you observe --i.e. as a symbol-- you start thinking about it, and this is beyond perception. Imagine how much involved in thinking --even if you are not aware of it-- if you start interpeting a whole arithmetic operation.
Consciousness/awareness stops at the perception level. The perceived, observed object.

Perception does not involve thinking.

In fact, one of the things you can do to get rid of your (useless) thoughts, is just to observe your surroundings.

I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. — Gnomon

Blindsight. Never heard of that before. Just looked it up. Wow, this looks quite interesting. I will have to learn more about it. So, at the moment I cannot comment on this phenomenon. Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later?

Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. — Gnomon

Gnomon, I think you are giving me too much homework! :smile:
But again, I see concepts and memory connected to consciousness. These things are products of the mind, stemming from mental processes, like thinking. Esp. concepts, which involve undestanding a much higher mental faculty. They all follow perception.

For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". — Gnomon

Mimosa, leaf, ... these are concepts. "Perceived touch" on the other hand can be assigned to consciousness, since touch is one of our senses and it is one of the means we gat aware of objects.

BTW, since we are talking about "senses", it is very interesting to know that we almost always think of just our 5 common senses, although there are many more of them: senses of movement, balance, orientation, gravity, pain, and so on. All these are perceivable.

Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?). — Gnomon

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun?
(Check "Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More ( http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf).)

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. — Gnomon

Good remark. :up:

in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin: — Gnomon

I'm afraid you are among the unfortunate, like myself, who belong to the minority and have to deal with that. Or are we fortunate? :smile:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion: Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result. — Gnomon

Certainly. That's why I'm a Quora fan! :grin: (Well, not so much for reading but rather for writing. :smile:)

Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

Thanks for the references (re: Blindsight and Vegetative State). They will help me in my homework. :smile:

physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. — Gnomon

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. I can be aware that I am alive, that I exist, that I'm looking to an object, etc. I don't have to interpret or undestand what these things mean. In the case of the obkect, its image is of course created in my mind, but it can be just that, an image. If I start to think about the meaining of this image, etc. I'm using mental faculties, which have nothong to do with consciousness, except that I can be aware that I am doing so! :smile:

Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? — Gnomon

Good question! I don't know! :grin:
Anyway, I wouldn't try to combine the physical with the non-physical in any way. There's an interaction between them. That's all. And if we try to investigate this interaction, we get into the mechanics of consciousness, which maybe we'll never undestand. If we could, we would have done it after all this time that we are exploring the sanctuary of consciousness. Maybe we have created a conceptual trap and fell in it.

"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper." — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

I have to add something here about how I use the term "perception": It normally means to become aware of something by means of our senses. And our senses are meant to be physical, of course. So I have to expand the term to also include being aware of our inner world --thoughts, emotions, etc.-- for which we are not using our senses. Unfortunately I don't have any other word.

You are right. The word "definition" was not a good choice of mine. But I certainly didn't mean a technical definition. I meant rather a description.
Now the difference with Nagel's famous description of "what it is like" --which I like very much-- is that it des not include any term, even as simple as "feeling". "What it's like to be ..." is independent of any concept or connotation. It is the closest to "experience" that we are talking about.

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception.

Yes, it is that simple. :smile:

And from this central, basic element we can now define consciousness as the state and ability to perceive. It also covers the physical aspect of "consciousness" as considered by neurobiologists and science in general, about which I talked in an earlier message.

I usually expand a little the above definition, to make it more plain and refer to humans, as follows: the state and ability to perceive our outside world (surroundings) as well as our inside world (thoughts, emotions, etc.)

I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life" — Gnomon

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. Yet, it could be acceptable, if neurophysiologists (like Koch) did not correlate consciousness with the brain --see neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC)-- in a way that everything, even subjective experiences, ends up in the brain. Which brain BTW is almost identified with the mind (!). But this is expected, since this is their field of specialization. However, I know about known scientists --not neurophysists/neurobiologists, but I have read about some them too-- who are examining consciousness outside the the traditional scientific and in a totally new frame of mind. Maybe Koch is among them. I have to read more from him than just "Consciousness is everything you experience", which I just read, and which I liked it. :smile:
Thanks from bringing up this ref.

Perhaps the most contentious feature of Consciousness is its experiential quality. — Gnomon

Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.)

For me, consciousness is basically experience. In fact, consciousness can be only experienced.
And human experience as not accepted in general as evidence for anything --esp. by Science-- because it is totally subjective, of course.

This, and generally the subjective and non-physical nature of consiousness, are the main reasons why we have got into such a thing as the "hard problem of consciounsess". But the inability of Science to deal with consciousness is so obvious, so much expected, that it makes the "hard problem of consciounsess" too overrated. In fact, it shouldn't exist as a problem at all. Why should it? The subject of "consciousness" is out of the jurisdiction of Science.

Also: Because Physicalism can't stop trying to engorge everything. — JuanZu

:up:
Mainly that.

I undestand what you say. Indeed, I ignored the part of "there are facts of the matter", which plays a role in moral statements. However, this does not change the main point of what I'm saying, i.e. saying this is bad and this is good, as objective statements, in an absolute way, as being the truth, etc. is like using rules, recipes of moral behaviour. Even if you restrict the statement "It is wrong to kill" by adding a condition like "if one is not under threat", it is still a moral rule. Even more statements of more specific nature, like "Greed is a vice", "Abortion is a bad thing", etc. act as moral rules.

As far as "normative ethics" are concerned, which you have brought up, the difference between normative statements and the above moral statements is that they are evaluations that are relative to some standard instead of being absolute. And I was certainly not talking about anything like that. Therefore your remark was out of point.

I didn't give an actual definition of "moral realism", but just a raw, very simplified description, just enough to present my views. And what I said agrees with its actual definition, at least as given by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Moral realism is the view that there are facts of the matter about which actions are right and which wrong, and about which things are good and which bad."

Please don't intervene except if you have something useful to say. I think I have told you that again.

I won't convince you about moral realism, because you don't need it. :smile:
I will instead support you in your goal. Although you don't actuall need that either. But it's something I can do very easily and I have to take it out of my system. :smile:

As I understand it, "moral realism" --I don't like and never use this term-- is basically about making a list of what things are right and what are wrong. These things resemble very much the rules that every game has. One must follow them in order to play a game. Of course, because they are actually part of the game. And that's all there is to them. They can also be set in groups, as principles of acceptable and inacceptable behavior that members of the group are obliged to follow if they want to participate in a group. All that is of course acceptable.

I could also call them "recipes" of moral behavior. The Ten Commandments is an example of such a moral view of the world. It is an arbitrary and absolute way of defining moral behavior. There's nothing metaphysical or scientific about it. They are so absolute that they don't leave any room for deviating from or breaking them. Even when there can be hundreds of logical, plausible, well-grounded reasons why one is justified to do so. There's no doubt that killing is a crime, that it is immoral to kill. It is even illegal. You go to prison. But what about justified killing for self-defense or in wars? People normally don't go to prison for that. Nor are they considered immoral by the society. You can take every Commandment, one by one, and you can find all sorts of cases in which one is justifies to deviate from or break them. If not for anything else, because they refer mainly to the Jewish people and their old customs. Yet they are supposed to be followed by all Christians everywhere in the world. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” This is ridiculous. How can be expected to follow these "rules"?

So, can such a moral(ity) system be applied to life as a whole and with all its versatility and multifacetedness?

Of course not.

An moral (I prefer the term "ethical") system must be founded on a basic principle, based on which other principles can be formed and ethical behavior and acts can be determined, allowing also for judgment to take place, based on rational thinking and facts, i.e. considering the conditions under which acts take place.

OK

Truth itself <is> purely conceptual. — PL Olcott

When I say that there is an object on the table and that the name of this object is "apple", these are facts. I'm telling the truth.

When I think about why is it called "apple", how to describe it, what is its nature, why apples exist, etc. I'm getting into concepts. These are not facts. They are subject to interpretation. So, we cannot call them "truth".

***

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Facts
"Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations."

Concepts vs. Facts
https://teacherthompsonblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/concepts-vs-facts/
"A concept is an abstract idea generalized from particular evidence; a fact is something that is known to be true, or a thing that is indisputably the case. To compare, a concept is something that can be understood, and a fact is something that is usually memorized."

Teaching Facts, Skills, Concepts, and Morals: What’s the Difference?
https://people.ucsc.edu/~ktellez/facts-skills-con.html
"Teaching Facts
Teachers help students learn facts—that is, verifiable pieces of specific information. Facts take a variety of forms, including definitions, names, dates, and formulae."
"Teaching Concepts
Teachers are generally most concerned with conceptual learning because it helps learners to understand why. Concepts are distinguished from facts in that they are a much broader, deeper type of knowledge."

Concepts vs. Facts
https://sapeter.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/edu-6526-concepts-vs-facts/
"A concept is an abstract idea generalized from particular instances or evidence, so involves an inductive process or thought” (Sheuerman, R.). By contrast, a fact is something known to be true, it’s a piece of information. To oversimplify the difference, facts are memorized where as concepts are understood."

Concepts vs Facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivCupQuIik
"Understanding the name of a bone is a fact. Understanding what it does in the body gets into a concept."
"You got to memorize bones, muscles, organs, tissues, a lot of it. But if you simply memorize and don't understand the
function of it the comprehension of the actual concepts it's a lot of wasted learning."

What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world ... then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world ... are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world? — Corvus

Yes, you can call it an illusion. This is what a lot of Easter polosophies assert. But I never liked this term that is used to actually mean our personal, subjective reality, i.e. how each of us view reality. The term "illusion" actually means misconception, false or misleading idea or impression of reality, etc. If we are fully conscious and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., I cannot call an illusion my view of the world in that state. This is my reality. I live with it. (Well, most of the time.) Otherwise, we have to call everything that exists for us an illusion. Can you live with it every moment in your life? Even if you consider and believe it to be true, it's a totally useless belief, it can't help you at all, since you can't do anything about it. So it is much more practical I believe to consider the --indisputable for me-- fact that the world and reality is what we consider, believe the world and reality, It's an agreement, a contract we make with life. Those who can't do that are in a big trouble. :smile:

Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world? — Corvus

Ha! This is playing with litreral meaning of words and phrases. When I'm saying "I perceive the world" I certainly don't mean I perceive every atom in it! I mean "the part of the world that I am able to perceive." Come on, this is more than obvious.

I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. — Corvus

Same as above. Of course it is not enough. Perceiving is becoming aware of and identifying something by means of our senses. I am aware of a big part of what my senses can receive. (They are receiving more than I can be aware of.) Ir also depends on my attention, i.e. where I direct my mind and thoughts to ot leave them to be directed to.

You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief. — Corvus

By "unperceived" you mean "never having been perceived" or "not being currently perceived"?
Anyway, I don't have to give a reason for believing that something exists if I don't have any reason why it doesn't. So, we come back once again to the non-ending issue of opposite views of the same thing. It's like the two sides of a coin, only that mine is heavier! :smile:
If the coin falls on its head, I have no reason to doubt about or prove that the other side is tail, do I?.

If you are totally open minded about all the possibilities that can happen to the unperceived existence, be it a tree, or a cup you have seen before, then you don't have reason (or you have less reason - depending on the situations) to believe it is still existing while not perceiving it. — Corvus

It depends on the object.

But you have not answered any of the questions from the agreed point of view. Most of your answers seem to have been based on the subjective concept of the world. Therefore we have not moved much forward from where we started. :) — Corvus

This is basically true. But it's you who have insisted to go on! :smile:
And I don't complain. I enjoyed the trip. :smile:

Exactly. This is what I'm saying. Too conceptual. :smile:

In fact, totally theoretical. Moreover, I can't even see how it applies to your "if I don't perceive it, it doesn't exist" principle.

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? — Corvus

Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking.

What is the world? — Corvus

This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world.

The point is not to do with being conscious or not. — Corvus

Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive?

if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. — Corvus

This sounds as a Cartersian argument. Of course, you can doubt the cup's existence or non existence.
I don't see however what this has to do with my saying that you have no reasons to believe in its non existence ...

The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it. — Corvus

I guess you mean the cup is not perceived by you, not that it is not and cannot be perceived in general. Well, the existence of the cup, the tree, the world certainly does not depend on whether you are perceiving or can perceive them or not. Their existence -- reality in general-- depends on the common aggreement of people that they exist. But even so, even if you are not currently perceiving them there's is no reason to believe they ceased to exist, for you and everyone else.
(It goes w/o saying of course that we are not talking about things that are expected to cease to exist after a certain period of time.)

At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy.

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore? — Corvus

This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable.

Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile:

OK. But I think you are stretching the issue or digging into it too much and that you are getting too conceptual about it, arriving finally at impractical conclusions. Conclusions that are also very difficult or even impossible to agree with or argue about.
You had only to examine and evaluate my arguement. If you don't agree with it or are questioning it, just present a counter-argument or questions about it. Explain why it is wrong or ask why it is so. Otherwise, there cannot be a dialogue.

If intelligence includes consciousness, then our organizations are conscious, intelligent beings, no different from us — ken2esq

Who is running the organizations?
How can organizations be conscious witout us?
Do organizations have a life of their own? Are they living organisms? Because only living organisms can be conscious.

when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. — Corvus

How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?
And, if you are not conscious (sleeping or unconscious in any way), then no question can be is raised as to whether you believe anything or not.

I do believe in the existence of the cup when I am perceiving it, but when I am not perceiving it, I no longer have a ground, warrant or reason to believe in the existence of it. — Corvus

The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? It may have been stolen in the meantime, but why would that be more probable than still existing? But even if it is stolen, wouldn't it still exist?
So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists.

I asked Bard to help out with some investment calculations the other day, and it got them hilariously wrong. — Wayfarer

I believe you 100%. Bard is a joke. At least its current version. (Strange thing for Google ...)

we're assigned Office365 with the bingbot built in, but it's exceedingly annoying, and crammed into a narrow vertical strip on the side of the browse — Wayfarer

Why don't you use https://www.bing.com/search?form=MY0291&OCID=MY0291&q=Bing+AI&showconv=1?

So for now I'm a ChatGPT4 fan (yes, I pay the money) — Wayfarer

I have in mind to do that myself too since quite long ago, but I keep it in some drawer, until I find a real use for it. :smile:

Is ChatGPT's response any good?
— Alkis Piskas
I've had many insightful interactions over the last twelve months ... — Wayfarer

I meant about the particular chat ("Explanatory Gap in Consciousness") but I didn't phrase it correctly.

Well, a while ago I asked ChatGPT 3.5: "What do you know about Meta's research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI?". It responded that its last update was in January 2022. I knew about this issue, but I wanted to see if it can make some research on the subject. Maybe version 4 could, but I don't have access to it. However I then asked Bing AI the same exact question, and I was impressed. It's response:

"According to my search results, Meta has been involved in several research projects related to mind-reading using AI and MRI technology. One of the recent breakthroughs in this field is the development of an AI system that can decode visual representations in the brain and reconstruct how images are perceived and processed in our minds. The researchers claim that the AI system can capture thousands of brain activity measurements per second and reconstruct the contents of our thoughts. Another research project involves the use of deep learning algorithms to recreate mental imagery from brain scans. The researchers trained a deep learning algorithm on 63,000 prior MEG results from four patients across 12 sessions, in which the patients saw 22,448 unique images, and 200 repeated images from that original pool. However, I could not find any information about Meta’s research on mind-reading using AI and dMRI."

How about that?

BTW, I generally consider Bing AI better that ChatGPT 3.5 from many aspects, but esp. because it is much less verbose. It also seems to be more "clever", e.g. it gives much shorter and elegant solutions to Math problems.

you never should take any of it on face value — Wayfarer

Certainly. And this is true I believe for everything you read in the Web. But one can always cross-check, verify information using reliable and trustable sources.

I thought that you understood that you are wrong in your criticism and why, but you didn't. My mistake.
In fact, the opposite happened. You came back with another criticism, to me this time.
Well, it seems that critisicm with personal offense is your cup of tea ...

Wow! I'm stunned. What a chat! I had no idea ... never heard about such a kind of chat with ChatGPT. I didn't even try myself. The largest prompts I have used are simple math problems and their solutions ...

I didn't read details ... Is ChatGPT's response any good?

I thought I had created links to specific interactions. I didn’t realize you would need to log in to review them, sorry. I’ll look into that, it’s a definite down-mark if that is so. — Wayfarer

You most probably did. But I had to log in with your details to see them. Using my own login details I just saw my own ChatGPT content.

[Re: AI tehncology] It is able to infer images on the basis of huge amounts of processing power and computer memory. I wonder how it could interpret a simple idea such as ‘greater than’? — Wayfarer

That is, how could it use logic, in general. I wonder about that, too. Maybe this is the task of the AI system that will be used. I can't say. I lack a lot information on both sides: Available or potentially available AI methods and esp. the brain.

can you try this one again?
https://chat.openai.com/share/967940e0-886c-4fd6-b919-ebe16a002d7e — Wayfarer

I did. I was landed on "Explanatory Gap in Consciousness". I didn't know that one can share ChatGPT chats. I will read all that and come back to you later ...

I wonder why don't advanced chatbots --like ChatGPT and Bing-- also use voice interaction. Speech to text and text to speech are technologies that exist since many years ago ...

I checked the links you mentioned. They both lead to https://chat.openai.com . What's special about it? It's the standard ChatGPT interface.

BTW, I explained to @wonderer1, who argued against you, by saying "these things are outcomes of the same physicalist thinking you are constantly crusading against", that being against physical thinking is irrelevant to questions rergarding technology, but he didn't bother to reply. Most probably he undesrstood that he was wrong and doesn't want to admit it. (I forgot to add a mention link to you. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/855078.)