Consciousness

[shunyadragon]

So are you saying consciousness is the result of this cognitive flexibility?

No, the research article does not propose that. I deals with the evidence concerning 'Cognoiive Flexibility' I detect a reading comprehension issue. Reread the research article and respond to the substance, conclusions, and actual intent of the research. Also the refer to the other research articles in this thread that deal directly to the relationship of the brain and consciousness.

The usual argument against a physical cause of consciousness is Mary's Room.
Knowledge argument - Wikipedia

This s a staged hypothetical philosophical thought experiment argument proposes a subjective problem concerning the nature of consciousness, and not evidence that there is another 'Source' for consciousness for with there is no objective evidence.

Mary's experiences are just Mary's experiences, and it circular to justify one's experiences based on a staged synario. Nothing is said here about Mary's experiences before entering this 'room' since she is a scientist.

What this s a philosophical thought experiment does not do is make any deffinative research concerning the brain and qualia experiences. The research I have cited will cite further does this.

The idea that all of the physical knowledge/understanding in the world cannot equal the actually experiencing of a thing.
IOW, science is unable to explain how the experiencing of something works.
So consciousness is the ability to experience, whatever.

This represents an philosophical assertion without any objective evidence nor a coherent response to the research articles cited that determine a direct relationship between th ebrain and consciousness.

It is a classic falisy of 'arguing from ignorance' when you have nothing of objective substance to present.

Computers can be aware of their environment and make decisions based on their environment but they can't experience their environment.

This subject does not have anything to do with the 'present' technology of computers.

How is cognitive flexibility any different than an advanced computer AI?
How do we get from cognitive flexibility to the ability to experience seeing the color red?

Reading comprehension problem concerning the literature cited still persists. AI is interesting in its infancy stage, but again no direct relationship relationship concerning the research the brain and consciousness.

 

[Nakosis]

No, the research article does not propose that. I deals with the evidence concerning 'Cognoiive Flexibility' I detect a reading comprehension issue. Reread the research article and respond to the substance, conclusions, and actual intent of the research. Also the refer to the other research articles in this thread that deal directly to the relationship of the brain and consciousness.

Kind of rude assuming the problem to be one of reading comprehension especially since I am on your side in this.
I'm asking your view on these ideas. Certainly I can read the opinion of others for myself.

This s a staged hypothetical philosophical thought experiment argument proposes a subjective problem concerning the nature of consciousness, and not evidence that there is another 'Source' for consciousness for with there is no objective evidence.

Mary's experiences are just Mary's experiences, and it circular to justify one's experiences based on a staged synario. Nothing is said here about Mary's experiences before entering this 'room' since she is a scientist.

What this s a philosophical thought experiment does not do is make any deffinative research concerning the brain and qualia experiences. The research I have cited will cite further does this.

Ok, just trying to clarify your position on this, which seems basically to ignore the "philosophical" idea of qualia which I'm not saying you shouldn't but simply curious of your position on this common attack on the idea of the physicality of consciousness.

This represents an philosophical assertion without any objective evidence nor a coherent response to the research articles cited that determine a direct relationship between th ebrain and consciousness.

It is a classic falisy of 'arguing from ignorance' when you have nothing of objective substance to present.

I agree, I think at some point science will understand how the experience of reality happens.
However in the mean time your position seems to be to ignore the gap between what science knows/can explain and the experiential perception of existence. Is that not an argument from ignore(ance) as well?

This subject does not have anything to do with the 'present' technology of computers.

Reading comprehension problem concerning the literature cited still persists. AI is interesting in its infancy stage, but again no direct relationship relationship concerning the research the brain and consciousness.

Perhaps not but everything you've attributed consciousness to can be attributed to computer AI as well. The only thing you are adding here is evidence for the physical nature of consciousness which I never had a disagreement with. I was hoping that maybe you had something more to offer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Kind of rude assuming the problem to be one of reading comprehension especially since I am on your side in this.
I'm asking your view on these ideas. Certainly I can read the opinion of others for myself.

Not rude at all! You asked a question in left field with no relevance to the source you cited nor my posts. The questioned you proposed is unanswerable based on the specific research article.

Ok, just trying to clarify your position on this, which seems basically to ignore the "philosophical" idea of qualia which I'm not saying you shouldn't but simply curious of your position on this common attack on the idea of the physicality of consciousness.

A common attack from the philosophical perspective, which is subjective without evidence is a problem.

You cannot just 'think about' the relationship between the brain and consciousness, and understand the relationship.

I agree, I think at some point science will understand how the experience of reality happens.
However in the mean time your position seems to be to ignore the gap between what science knows/can explain and the experiential perception of existence. Is that not an argument from ignore(ance) as well?

No, because my argument is simply and specifically based on citing research and discoveries related to objective verifiable evidence concerning the relationship between the brain and consciousness. No further, because beyond this it becomes speculation.

Perhaps not but everything you've attributed consciousness to can be attributed to computer AI as well.

No, because AI is an artificial creation by human efforts and pretty much is known step by step of the creation process. AI is in its infancy. The problem remains AI is simply an extremely sophisticated computer programing with no relationship to how the brain functions, The only thing comparable in its infancy is the creation artificial neuron networks that function like the brain.

Frontiers | How can artificial neural networks approximate the brain?

The article reviews the history development of artificial neural networks (ANNs), then compares the differences between ANNs and brain networks in their cons...

www.frontiersin.org

How can artificial neural networks approximate the brain?​

Feng Shao* and Zheng Shen

• Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China

The article reviews the history development of artificial neural networks (ANNs), then compares the differences between ANNs and brain networks in their constituent unit, network architecture, and dynamic principle. The authors offer five points of suggestion for ANNs development and ten questions to be investigated further for the interdisciplinary field of brain simulation. Even though brain is a super-complex system with 1011 neurons, its intelligence does depend rather on the neuronal type and their energy supply mode than the number of neurons. It might be possible for ANN development to follow a new direction that is a combination of multiple modules with different architecture principle and multiple computation, rather than very large scale of neural networks with much more uniformed units and hidden layers.

Introduction​

Studies in ANNs have been the focus of contemporary society since the Image Net competition in visual object recognition was won by a deep neural network(Kietzmann et al., 2019; Kriegeskorte and Golan, 2019). Engineers dream of pursuing a class of brain-inspired machines. The situation of robots superseding humans in many functions may soon be a reality. Meanwhile, neurobiologists and psychologists wonder about progress in neural networks due to the great differences between ANNs and biological brains(Crick, 1989; Carlson et al., 2018).
This article reviews the contemporary theories and technical advances in three related fields: ANNs, neuroscience and psychology. ANNs were born mainly from more than two thousand years of mathematical theories and algorithms; over the past two hundred years, neuroscience has revealed more truths about the mysteries of the brain; and psychology has just passed its 143th anniversary of accumulating conceptions about conscious and unconscious cognitive processes. Cognitive sciences, encapsulating the disciplines of both natural and artificial intelligence, were founded in the mid-1970s to inquire into the mystery of intelligent substitutes, including humans, animals and machines. Although progress in these related fields is promising, a completed brain-inspired intelligent machine is far from the human brain. How can we reduce the distance between engineers’ dreams and reality? Some suggestions for brain simulation will be offered in the paper.

The only thing you are adding here is evidence for the physical nature of consciousness which I never had a disagreement with. I was hoping that maybe you had something more to offer.

All I can do is offer more current research articles and discoveries. I admit a bias against philosophy, because it is loaded with the hypothetical speculation, and thought experience that have little or no relevance to the physical evidence of the relationship between the brain and consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Kind of rude assuming the problem to be one of reading comprehension especially since I am on your side in this.
I'm asking your view on these ideas. Certainly I can read the opinion of others for myself.

The research supports the link between the brain and consciousness properties of cognitive flexibility and their relationship to the survival motive of evolution and the common presence in other animals. Again, from the reference . . .

Summary: A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

Participants were studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while learning a sensorimotor task, the findings of which showed the importance of sensory brain regions in decision-making. The researchers also discovered surprising similarities between the brain activity of humans and mice during this task.

These results suggest that the interplay between the frontal brain and sensory brain regions for decision-making formed early in evolutionary development.

Key Facts:

1. Cognitive flexibility, which allows quick adaptation to changing conditions, is crucial for survival and is based on the functions of the orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.
2. Sensory brain regions are critical in decision-making processes as discovered in the study, suggesting the need for further investigation in this area.
3. The similarity in cognitive processes between mice and humans suggests that these decision-making mechanisms likely developed early in evolutionary history.

This is only one of a number of research articles that support the physical relationship between the brain and consciousness, and more will be posted. The journal Neruoscience is an important source of references of this research,

​

 

[Yerda]

I do not believe this a problem from the scientific perspective. It has been shown experiential phenomena have been traced to the brain neurologically whether you consider them objective or objective.

Ok. I'm on board with experiences being the result of what brains do - I can't see any other possibility. But this doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Nothing in science gives an account of how subjective phenomena can come from physical events. I'm sure we'll get there one day but as of yet it still seems to be a total mystery.

I believe that science has demonstrated years ago by simply tracing human thoughts of experiences and even emotions neurologically to the place or places in the brain they originate.

I believe that the reference partially addresses. You cannot have "Cognitive flexibility' if you cannot establish the relationship of cognitive experiences to the brain.


I wanted to add there is no specific theory involved here. Science directly measures and observes response of neurons to experiences, emotions in humans and animals to demonstrate the relationship of the brain to consciousness regardless of whether they are subjective or objective. In the case of this research cited, yes cognitive flexibility is indeed 'subjective but it can be compared as neurological responses of brain neurons.

I can happily agree with all of this. I still think there is a gap in our understanding. Something about brains and what they do gives rise to subjective experiential states - but we don't seem to be able to give an account for it.

 

[gnostic]

There have been a number of threads and posts that challenge the scientific basis for a natural evolved basis for an evolved natural consciousness.

The following are basic definitions of consciousness:

The Cambridge Dictionary defines consciousness as "the state of understanding and realizing something." The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something."

I will argue the following:

1. Degrees of consciousness exist through out the evolutionary history of animals with a nervous system and a brain with neurological responses to the awareness of the environment, Consciousness increases with complexity over time.
2. Consciousness represents the collective thoughts, reasoning, understand and realizing relationships and responses to the environment, which have been falsified by scientific methods that originate from the brain and nervous system.
3. Science has reasonable explanation of the nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.

Research is constantly expand our scientific understanding of consciousness in the animal kingdoms. The following article is representative of the current advances of science:

Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Cognitive Flexibility - Neuroscience News

A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

neurosciencenews.com

Harvard scientists seem to have located the area of the brain responsible for consciousness.

Harvard Scientists Think They've Pinpointed The Physical Source of Consciousness

Scientists have struggled for millennia to understand human consciousness – the awareness of one's existence.

www.sciencealert.com

As I am no neurologist, nor even a philosopher, I can only agree or disagree with certain various positions or arguments with regards to consciousness.

I am more inclined to accept biological answers and researches that tie consciousness to the central nervous system (CNS), which would include the brain and spinal cord of any organisms, particularly those of the kingdom Animalia.

But not too long ago, I had learned that certain animals, particularly in among some invertebrates have neither brain, nor spinal cord, or both...such as the sponges and diploblasts (subkingdom Eumetazoa). It is highly doubtful that animals without brains can be conscious, they have nerves and tissues, but nothing to control every bodily functions.

But I don’t know about other animals’ biology than I do with humans. So much of my focus of my posts will be on human brains and human consciousness.

From what I understand the word “consciousness”, it means being aware of external surroundings, the environments and being aware of other entities (eg other humans, animals, etc) - and how conscious person can react to the environments or entities.

So awareness is tied to our senses, particularly through sensory organs (eyes, ears, noses, tongue) and other nerves (eg the sense of touch). But from the little that I have learned about the human brain, what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel, are controlled and process information by different parts of the brain.

We also communicate through speech, so there are parts of our brain that allow understand or process what other people say and processing language.

With the brain doing so many things at every instance, pinpointing what part of the brain that control everything, is what the two articles (links from @shunyadragon & @Twilight Hue) are trying to find out.

All I know that something that affect a person, can also affect the consciousness, such as trauma, diseases, drugs, alcohol, etc.

For instance, an accident can render a person being blind, whether the blindness permanent or temporary, it does limited their awareness.

Likewise accident can render a person unconscious. The trauma can affect the brain, will affect a person’s abilities to be aware of his or her surroundings.

These are evidence that brain plays parts in consciousness.

As to the philosophies and religions on the subject of consciousness, they tends to be subjective views. Especially whe. They believe that consciousness can exist beyond the physical brain

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. I'm on board with experiences being the result of what brains do - I can't see any other possibility. But this doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Nothing in science gives an account of how subjective phenomena can come from physical events. I'm sure we'll get there one day but as of yet it still seems to be a total mystery.

No mystery at all. There are still limits to the present research concerning what you call subjective experiences.. The relationship between subjective experiences and the brain is not without evidence.

Frontiers | A First Principles Approach to Subjective Experience

Understanding the neural bases of subjective experience remains one of the great challenges of the natural sciences. Higher-order theories of consciousness a...

www.frontiersin.org

A First Principles Approach to Subjective Experience​

Brian Key1*, Oressia Zalucki1 and

Deborah J. Brown2*

Conclusion​

Our strategy applies two basic principles (first, subjective experience is contingent on neural processing executing specific neural functions; and second, structure-determines-function) to define a minimal neural architecture necessary for subjective experience. Since this approach was never intended to bridge the gap between preconscious and conscious awareness, it has allowed us to avoid the contentious and more challenging question of why subjective experience should feel like something rather than nothing. For now, this question remains unanswered. Nonetheless, our framework has already provided insights into the sorts of organisms that most likely lack subjective experience, such as plants (Brown and Key, 2021b), insects (Key et al., 2021), molluscs (Key and Brown, 2018), and fish (Brown and Key, 2021a). It should be noted that it is not forward models per se, but rather it is their deployment and implementation within the correct architectural framework—as revealed by the hierarchical forward models algorithm—that countenances the likelihood of subjective experience. For example, while processing of noxious stimuli in drosophila involves hierarchical processing modules that act in parallel, the underlying circuitry lacks the necessary interconnectivity required to execute the computations (predictions and predictions errors) of either first-order or second-order forward models (Key et al., 2021).

While our hierarchical forward models algorithm shares some similarities with other higher-order theories of consciousness, it has enabled a major advance by allowing identification of some necessary neural computations and the requirement of specific neural architectures for their execution. Together, these criteria constrain the types of nervous systems that can give rise to subjective experience. Equating preconscious awareness with internal models and their central importance in control of neural processing has also provided new insights into possible functional advantages of subjective experience.

Another popular approach in perceptual processing is predictive coding (Friston, 2010). While predictive processing advocates for hierarchical internal models, there are some major differences with our hierarchical forward models algorithm. The models in predictive processing reside within the processing pathway. As such, these models are designed to predict the causes of sensory stimuli and to explain content of what is experienced rather than the awareness of that content. In our algorithm, the forward models predict the outcome of processing and hence provide external awareness of content. Importantly, both approaches adopt the structure-determines-function principle and claim that the execution of the internal models demands defined neural architectures. It is not incidental that the evolution of neural architectures supporting hierarchical internal models has clearly been instrumental for both perceptual processing and for subjective experience.

I can happily agree with all of this. I still think there is a gap in our understanding. Something about brains and what they do gives rise to subjective experiential states - but we don't seem to be able to give an account for it.

Post #10 provided a reference to research on Experiential phenomena.

Experiential phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy. Facts and hypotheses - PubMed
Experiential phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy. Facts and hypotheses

 

[shunyadragon]

As I am no neurologist, nor even a philosopher, I can only agree or disagree with certain various positions or arguments with regards to consciousness.

I am more inclined to accept biological answers and researches that tie consciousness to the central nervous system (CNS), which would include the brain and spinal cord of any organisms, particularly those of the kingdom Animalia.

But not too long ago, I had learned that certain animals, particularly in among some invertebrates have neither brain, nor spinal cord, or both...such as the sponges and diploblasts (subkingdom Eumetazoa). It is highly doubtful that animals without brains can be conscious, they have nerves and tissues, but nothing to control every bodily functions.

But I don’t know about other animals’ biology than I do with humans. So much of my focus of my posts will be on human brains and human consciousness.

From what I understand the word “consciousness”, it means being aware of external surroundings, the environments and being aware of other entities (eg other humans, animals, etc) - and how conscious person can react to the environments or entities.

So awareness is tied to our senses, particularly through sensory organs (eyes, ears, noses, tongue) and other nerves (eg the sense of touch). But from the little that I have learned about the human brain, what we see, hear, taste, smell and feel, are controlled and process information by different parts of the brain.

We also communicate through speech, so there are parts of our brain that allow understand or process what other people say and processing language.

With the brain doing so many things at every instance, pinpointing what part of the brain that control everything, is what the two articles (links from @shunyadragon & @Twilight Hue) are trying to find out.

All I know that something that affect a person, can also affect the consciousness, such as trauma, diseases, drugs, alcohol, etc.

For instance, an accident can render a person being blind, whether the blindness permanent or temporary, it does limited their awareness.

Likewise accident can render a person unconscious. The trauma can affect the brain, will affect a person’s abilities to be aware of his or her surroundings.

These are evidence that brain plays parts in consciousness.

As to the philosophies and religions on the subject of consciousness, they tends to be subjective views. Especially whe. They believe that consciousness can exist beyond the physical brain

OK post. I may respond to this more in the future. Nonetheless I qualified my argument in animals in general I limited consciousness to animals with a brain and complex nervous system. There may be proiitive forms of consciousness in lower animals, but I have not dealt with that.

 

[cladking]

Huh?!?!Einstein's rain or any other dead brain has nothing to do with the consciousness of a living brain. Einstein's brain is little more than a curiosity and physically nothing of interest was found different in evaluating Einstein's dead brain.

The issue here is whether scientific methods can explain the ;physical function of the brain that leads to consciousness, which the present objective evidence and scientific methods indicates that this is the case.

Certainly science might one day understand the nature of consciousness. But we still don't even have a working definition for it so it might be decades away.

 

[shunyadragon]

Certainly science might one day understand the nature of consciousness. But we still don't even have a working definition for it so it might be decades away.

I disagree your argument reflects a vague 'arguing from ignorance' without considering the actual current science of 'consciousness. Your assertions lack references and only reflect an opinion. Considering the acceptable definitions of consciousness and the evolution of consciousness from the simple to the complex science does have adequate definitions and criteria for 'what is consciousness?'

I believe I have responded to your vague assertions concerning consciousness in the past and you failed to respond with an adequate argument. You did not respond to post #9 and the references, and just repeated your vague assertions.

Even though, yes, scientists do disagree as when consciousness evolved in th eprocess of physical evolution, and all the information is not in, there is no problem with what consciousness is and the fact that it naturally evolved. Repeating vague references to unanswered questions are not a coherent argument concerning what science does and does not know about consciousness. Your re[etition without substance does not recognize that in all sciences there are of course unanswered questions.

Worthy of note: Current research, concepts and definitions for consciousness is moving away from anthropomorphic concepts to natural progressive evolution of consciousness that consider degree complexity of observations of consciousness in nature..

The research on Octipi is a classic example of evolved consciousness separate from animals and insects with a central nervous system,

The Mind of an Octopus

Eight smart limbs plus a big brain add up to a weird and wondrous kind of intelligence

www.scientificamerican.com

The Mind of an Octopus​

Eight smart limbs plus a big brain add up to a weird and wondrous kind of intelligence

Deep-sea thinkers

• Octopuses and their kin (cuttlefish and squid) stand apart from other invertebrates, having evolved with much larger nervous systems and greater cognitive complexity.
• The majority of neurons in an octopus are found in the arms, which can independently taste and touch and also control basic motions without input from the brain.
• Octopus brains and vertebrate brains have no common anatomy but support a variety of similar features, including forms of short- and long-term memory, versions of sleep, and the capacities to recognize individual people and explore objects through play.

Adapted from Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Copyright © 2016 by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Published by arrangement with Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC (U.S.), HarperCollins (U.K.)
Someone is watching you, intently, but you can't see them. Then you notice, drawn somehow by their eyes. You're amid a sponge garden, the seafloor scattered with shrublike clumps of bright orange sponge. Tangled in one of these sponges and the gray-green seaweed around it is an animal about the size of a cat. Its body seems to be everywhere and nowhere. The only parts you can keep a fix on are a small head and the two eyes. As you make your way around the sponge, so, too, do those eyes, keeping their distance, keeping part of the sponge between the two of you. The creature's color perfectly matches the seaweed, except that some of its skin is folded into tiny, towerlike peaks with tips that match the orange of the sponge. Eventually it raises its head high, then rockets away under jet propulsion.
A second meeting with an octopus: this one is in a den. Shells are strewn in front, arranged with some pieces of old glass. You stop in front of its house, and the two of you look at each other. This one is small, about the size of a tennis ball. You reach forward a hand and stretch out one finger, and one octopus arm slowly uncoils and comes out to touch you. The suckers grab your skin, and the hold is disconcertingly tight. It tugs your finger, tasting it as it pulls you gently in. The arm is packed with sensors, hundreds of them in each of the dozens of suckers. The arm itself is alive with neurons, a nest of nervous activity. Behind the arm, large round eyes watch you the whole time.
Octopuses and their relatives (cuttlefish and squid) represent an island of mental complexity in the sea of invertebrate animals. Since my first encounters with these creatures about a decade ago, I have been intrigued by the powerful sense of engagement that is possible when interacting with them. Our most recent common ancestor is so distant—more than twice as ancient as the first dinosaurs—that they represent an entirely independent experiment in the evolution of large brains and complex behavior. If we can connect with them as sentient beings, it is not because of a shared history, not because of kinship, but because evolution built minds twice over. They are probably the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.

 

[cladking]

I disagree your argument reflects a vague 'arguing from ignorance' without considering the actual current science of 'consciousness. Your assertions lack references and only reflect an opinion. Considering the acceptable definitions of consciousness and the evolution of consciousness from the simple to the complex science does have adequate definitions and criteria for 'what is consciousness?'

I believe I have responded to your vague assertions concerning consciousness in the past and you failed to respond with an adequate argument. You did not respond to post #9 and the references, and just repeated your vague assertions.

Even though, yes, scientists do disagree as when consciousness evolved in th eprocess of physical evolution, and all the information is not in, there is no problem with what consciousness is and the fact that it naturally evolved. Repeating vague references to unanswered questions are not a coherent argument concerning what science does and does not know about consciousness. Your re[etition without substance does not recognize that in all sciences there are of course unanswered questions.

Worthy of note: Current research, concepts and definitions for consciousness is moving away from anthropomorphic concepts to natural progressive evolution of consciousness that consider degree complexity of observations of consciousness in nature..

The research on Octipi is a classic example of evolved consciousness separate from animals and insects with a central nervous system,

The Mind of an Octopus

Eight smart limbs plus a big brain add up to a weird and wondrous kind of intelligence

www.scientificamerican.com

The Mind of an Octopus​

Eight smart limbs plus a big brain add up to a weird and wondrous kind of intelligence

Deep-sea thinkers

• Octopuses and their kin (cuttlefish and squid) stand apart from other invertebrates, having evolved with much larger nervous systems and greater cognitive complexity.
• The majority of neurons in an octopus are found in the arms, which can independently taste and touch and also control basic motions without input from the brain.
• Octopus brains and vertebrate brains have no common anatomy but support a variety of similar features, including forms of short- and long-term memory, versions of sleep, and the capacities to recognize individual people and explore objects through play.

Adapted from Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Copyright © 2016 by Peter Godfrey-Smith. Published by arrangement with Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC (U.S.), HarperCollins (U.K.)
Someone is watching you, intently, but you can't see them. Then you notice, drawn somehow by their eyes. You're amid a sponge garden, the seafloor scattered with shrublike clumps of bright orange sponge. Tangled in one of these sponges and the gray-green seaweed around it is an animal about the size of a cat. Its body seems to be everywhere and nowhere. The only parts you can keep a fix on are a small head and the two eyes. As you make your way around the sponge, so, too, do those eyes, keeping their distance, keeping part of the sponge between the two of you. The creature's color perfectly matches the seaweed, except that some of its skin is folded into tiny, towerlike peaks with tips that match the orange of the sponge. Eventually it raises its head high, then rockets away under jet propulsion.
A second meeting with an octopus: this one is in a den. Shells are strewn in front, arranged with some pieces of old glass. You stop in front of its house, and the two of you look at each other. This one is small, about the size of a tennis ball. You reach forward a hand and stretch out one finger, and one octopus arm slowly uncoils and comes out to touch you. The suckers grab your skin, and the hold is disconcertingly tight. It tugs your finger, tasting it as it pulls you gently in. The arm is packed with sensors, hundreds of them in each of the dozens of suckers. The arm itself is alive with neurons, a nest of nervous activity. Behind the arm, large round eyes watch you the whole time.
Octopuses and their relatives (cuttlefish and squid) represent an island of mental complexity in the sea of invertebrate animals. Since my first encounters with these creatures about a decade ago, I have been intrigued by the powerful sense of engagement that is possible when interacting with them. Our most recent common ancestor is so distant—more than twice as ancient as the first dinosaurs—that they represent an entirely independent experiment in the evolution of large brains and complex behavior. If we can connect with them as sentient beings, it is not because of a shared history, not because of kinship, but because evolution built minds twice over. They are probably the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.

Yes! Octopi are conscious even when they are sleeping just like you and me. They have a very high level of consciousness like whales, elephants, and porpoises. They are probably as "intelligent" as humans but this is only because humans are not actually intelligent in any sense you'd recognize because in reality intelligence is an event rather than a condition. Animals like humans, porpoises, and crows with lots of "spare" brain have more chance to experience the event that is intelligence.

Octopus have been known to actually rescue human babies from ship wrecks but are prone to harass and drown adults.

Humans mistake language for intelligence and consciousness but our language actually removes us from the rest of nature and makes our consciousness very difficult to see at all. Only humans "think", other creatures merely experience and act on knowledge.

We might not ever understand our or any other consciousness using the techniques of reductionistic science for the simple reason that consciousness is irreducible. We can glimpse many of its parts without ever understanding its nature.

I keep justifying statements like this and it is ignored.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes! Octopi are conscious even when they are sleeping just like you and me. They have a very high level of consciousness like whales, elephants, and porpoises. They are probably as "intelligent" as humans but this is only because humans are not actually intelligent in any sense you'd recognize because in reality intelligence is an event rather than a condition. Animals like humans, porpoises, and crows with lots of "spare" brain have more chance to experience the event that is intelligence.

Octopus have been known to actually rescue human babies from ship wrecks but are prone to harass and drown adults.

Humans mistake language for intelligence and consciousness but our language actually removes us from the rest of nature and makes our consciousness very difficult to see at all. Only humans "think", other creatures merely experience and act on knowledge.

We might not ever understand our or any other consciousness using the techniques of reductionistic science for the simple reason that consciousness is irreducible. We can glimpse many of its parts without ever understanding its nature.

I keep justifying statements like this and it is ignored.

 

[shunyadragon]

The following statement negates the value of your response.

We might not ever understand our or any other consciousness using the techniques of reductionistic science for the simple reason that consciousness is irreducible. We can glimpse many of its parts without ever understanding its nature.

This philosophical statement is not meaningful and can be said of many sciences such as Quantum Mechanics without scientific substance. like your previous post it is not a productive approach to the questions involving consciousness.

Flat negative statements that you assert emphatically that that consciousness is irreducible, is not supportable by you. Actually science has come along way to demonstrate that Consciousness is indeed reducible by the current scientific methods.

 

[cladking]

The following statement negates the value of your response.

We might not ever understand our or any other consciousness using the techniques of reductionistic science for the simple reason that consciousness is irreducible. We can glimpse many of its parts without ever understanding its nature.

This philosophical statement is not meaningful and can be said of many sciences such as Quantum Mechanics without scientific substance. like your previous post it is not a productive approach to the questions involving consciousness.

Flat negative statements that you assert emphatically that that consciousness is irreducible, is not supportable by you. Actually science has come along way to demonstrate that Consciousness is indeed reducible by the current scientific methods.

You should read it again. I said consciousness may be irreducible.

I would add that if I am correct about the nature of consciousness then it probably IS irreducible.

Where is you scientific evidence that it is reducible. Of course you have none because without even a proper definition no such determination is possible. I say it probably isn't reducible because my definition implies exactly this.

 

[shunyadragon]

You should read it again. I said consciousness may be irreducible.

I would add that if I am correct about the nature of consciousness then it probably IS irreducible.

Where is you scientific evidence that it is reducible. Of course you have none because without even a proper definition no such determination is possible. I say it probably isn't reducible because my definition implies exactly this.

This response confirms as you stated before, which is an unsupported absolute conclusion that the bold reaffirms which is an unreasonable tape recorded response in everyone of your posts. Your view remains unsupported philosophical assertions.

I have cited the progressive advancing research that is describing a consciousness that is indeed reducible and will cite more. The basic definition of consciousness us simple and specific.and proper. Actually it is defined over time in equating observed brain and nervous system activity in life forms over time as the observed conscious behaviour by present scientific methods. The fact that there remaons unanswered questions does not justify your extreme negative philosophical assertions 'arguing from ignorance' as bolded.

There is also the problem of the fact of the lack alternate hypothesis that has any explanatory power.

 

[cladking]

This response confirms as you stated before, which is an unsupported absolute conclusion that the bold reaffirms which is an unreasonable tape recorded response in everyone of your posts. Your view remains unsupported philosophical assertions.

You're not being logical. You are saying you don't need a definition to study something. Without a definition you wouldn't even know if it bit you on the nose. Have you ever tried looking for a tool when you didn't know what it was, what it did, and what it looked like? And then try that while picturing a screw driver in your mind.

All you're doing is following that science which might or might not be related to consciousness. Activating a neuron in the brain to elicit a response is not studying something with no definition. This is science, definition, or metaphysics; it's simple common sense.

Life is consciousness and consciousness is what allows individuals to thrive. All life is individual. The Yankees are not a natural phenomenon. All ideas are individual. All consciousness is individual. Science is not a group project led by Peers and overseen by evidence and logic. You are doing it wrong. Humans are doing it wrong. The individuals who invented science did it such that experiment was fundamental and poking brains with electrodes is like hitting a B&O hammer with a railroad car full of stereo equipment.

 

[gnostic]

Yes! Octopi are conscious even when they are sleeping just like you and me. They have a very high level of consciousness like whales, elephants, and porpoises. They are probably as "intelligent" as humans but this is only because humans are not actually intelligent in any sense you'd recognize because in reality intelligence is an event rather than a condition. Animals like humans, porpoises, and crows with lots of "spare" brain have more chance to experience the event that is intelligence.

here, you are confusing consciousness with intelligence.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're not being logical. You are saying you don't need a definition to study something. Without a definition you wouldn't even know if it bit you on the nose. Have you ever tried looking for a tool when you didn't know what it was, what it did, and what it looked like? And then try that while picturing a screw driver in your mind.

All you're doing is following that science which might or might not be related to consciousness. Activating a neuron in the brain to elicit a response is not studying something with no definition. This is science, definition, or metaphysics; it's simple common sense.

Life is consciousness and consciousness is what allows individuals to thrive. All life is individual. The Yankees are not a natural phenomenon. All ideas are individual. All consciousness is individual. Science is not a group project led by Peers and overseen by evidence and logic. You are doing it wrong. Humans are doing it wrong. The individuals who invented science did it such that experiment was fundamental and poking brains with electrodes is like hitting a B&O hammer with a railroad car full of stereo equipment.

There are more than adequate definitions for consciousness, and overwhelming evidence that yes, consciousness can be explained by natural causes in terms of evolution causes demonstrated by the progressive evolution of consciousness and the independent of extremely intelligent consciousness in octopuses.

Your ancient religious agenda is obvious.

 

[shunyadragon]

here, you are confusing consciousness with intelligence.

The evolution development of intelligence parallels the development of consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I disagree your argument reflects a vague 'arguing from ignorance' without considering the actual current science of 'consciousness.

You can't have a "science of consciousness" without a definition for "consciousness". "Neuroscience" studies nerves, not consciousness. AQnatomy is not consciousness. I think therefore I am is not consciousness. Nothing science does is the studfy of consciousness until such time as there ois a definition for "consciousness"

In the meantime all we can say is some of what science is studying probably relates directly to consciousness.