Classic god of the gaps stuff, with all the problems that entails.

We all agree that it is difficult to explain consciousness. Does that mean that logically we just accept an evidence-free and untestable "explanation" from the theologians? I think not.

There are two books, both by the late Darryl Reanny, which deal with consciousness and physics. The death of forever and music of the mind.
The subject is viewed by Reanny, through the eyes of a molecular biologist , using comparative religion and physical science as the base for his conclusions

So called theology does not in any sense whatsoever provide an answer to the Mystery of Consciousness. Because like all of Western philosophy and religion (in particular) it is based on three uninspected myths about the intrinsically God-less separate and always separative ego-"I", as described here:
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html

Put in another way, all so called theology is created by the much vaunted death-haunted SHAKTI or SPIRIT-KILLING left brained mind.

This reference provides a comprehensive discussion of the nature of Consciousness
http://www.adidaupclose.org/books/we_are_consciousness_itself.html

More references on Reality as Indivisible Conscious Light, and the myth of "matter". The first one provides a unique Illuminated Understanding of the various existing interpretations of Reality.
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/broken.html

The light of knowledge is held in the hands of materialist not stone age mambo jumbo.
Man will create a mind that is self aware in time.
We will also create life one atom at a time.
We will even create elements at will in the future.

where will your god be hiding then?

Consciousness is not a phenomenon.

>>Man will create a mind that is self aware in time. <<

Conscious (or self aware) man creating a conscious (or self aware) mind out of “unconscious” physical matter sounds to me like the story about baron Münchhausen, who escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair.

>>We will also create life one atom at a time.
We will even create elements at will in the future.<<

Plausible basic tenets of the artificial religion called scientism. Other religions are based on other beliefs, likewise plausible and unverifiable, some of them (e.g. Christianity) compatible with the two creeds quoted above.

Yuyutsu, I agree, hence the “god of the gaps” argument does not apply here.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« Computers will never reach consciousness. There is an infinite qualitative difference between physical processes that are subject to physical laws and hence cannot transcend those laws and a conscious being who can be self-aware and act with intention … Being an inheritor of the materialist philosophy, as most scientists are, without even thinking of its inadequacy, I found myself profoundly disturbed »
.

Would you kindly indicate the evidence permitting to conclude that “computers will never reach consciousness” ?

Also, what is there to prove that somebody “acts with intention” ?

In common language, “intention” designates “a wish that one means to carry out”. It implies the notion of “purpose”. Whereas the Mozley & Whitley’s Law Dictionary does not define it in terms of “wish” or “desire” or any notion of “purpose”, but simply in terms of the “not unlikely consequences of a deliberate act” :

[ When used with reference to civil and criminal responsibility, a person who contemplates any result, as not unlikely to follow from a deliberate act of his own, may be said to intend that result, whether he desire it or not. Thus, if a man should, for a wager, discharge a gun among a multitude of people, and any should be killed, he would be deemed guilty of intending the death of such person: for every man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his own actions. Intention is often confounded with motive, as when we speak of a man’s “good intentions. ]

My understanding is that, given the current state of the art of scientific knowledge, it is impossible to identify and measure “intention” in a person’s mind using objective tools. It can only be done by purely subjective means, i.e., depending on how an observer interprets a particular behaviour.

It seems to me that the religious explanation of “conscience” you indicate can also only be purely subjective.

But, I await your further explanations with interest ...

.

>>Would you kindly indicate the evidence permitting to conclude that “computers will never reach consciousness” ?<<

No evidence only expert opinion can be extracted from the 54 pages of the first chapter “Consciousness and Computation” in Roger Penrose’s book “Shadows of the Mind - a Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness” (OUP 1994), summarised in the Preface thus:

“My case has two distinct strands to it. One of these is essentially negative, in that I argue strongly against the commonly held viewpoint that our conscious mentality - in all of its various manifestations - could, in principle, be fully understood in terms of computational models. The other strand to my reasoning is positive in the sense that it represents a genuine search for a means - within the constraints of the hard facts of science - whereby a scientifically describable brain might be able to make use of subtly unknown physical principles in order to perform the needed non-computational action”.

Note that Penrose is a distinguished mathematical physicist and atheist. And that in spite of his search, he does not explicitly claim that science will be able to EXPLAIN consciousness (as e.g. it can explain the movement of the planets).

When he writes that “scientifically describable brain night be able to make use of subtly unknown physical principles in order to perform the needed non-computational action” this is a personal belief not very different from that of the theist who can make use of other (albeit non-physical) principles - namely of his/her faith - that in his/her mind can play the role of Penrose’s “non-computational action”.

My personal belief is that science might be able to better and better approximate the function of consciousness by some “non-computational actions” but never to fully explain it like it can some phenomena from the physical world.

Yuyutsu,
How can you possible say that consciousness is not a phenomenon? Can you really disregard your own rich experience of the world and of inner thought and memory? It seems to me that consciousness is the most reliable phenomenon that we can experience.

Dear Peter,

Phenomena occur - whereas consciousness is constant and everlasting.
Phenomena can be observed objectively - whereas consciousness cannot.

Consciousness can be likened to light:

We rarely experience pure light directly - what we normally experience is refracted light that has taken shape and form after hitting an object. The result is that normally our experience is that of seeing an object rather than of seeing light itself.

Similarly we rarely experience pure consciousness (which, if taken further, amounts to experiencing God directly) - what we normally experience is an indirect and limited expression of consciousness that was refracted by hitting our minds and/or certain spots in our brain. This includes memory and logic, which collates impulses to deduct that consciousness must have been present in the past (somewhat like the effect of light on a camera-film), but truly we ordinarily experience neither the world nor consciousness, but rather the deductions of some mind which we call 'ours'. The experienced memory-based IDEA of consciousness (itself a phenomenon, like any other idea) falls short behind actual consciousness and as rich as the contents of our mind may be, it's still a far cry from consciousness itself.

---

Dear George,

Though it would be a nightmare which I hope never happens, I cannot discard the possibility that one day man will be able to look at brains and minds and measure their intention using objective tools. Likewise, I cannot discard the possibility that man will one day create new brains and minds that would be practically indistinguishable from existing brains and minds.

Thankfully, last time something similar was attempted, it was prevented by God (Genesis 11:1-9), but as for the future we have no guarantees.

Even if man creates new minds which parrot: "I am conscious", "Don't hurt me", "I want to rule the world", etc., we must remember that minds (old or new) are not conscious. While you and I are conscious, our minds are probably just a dead mechanism.

New Scientist published a number of articles on conciousness sometime early last year and there's been a spirited (pun intended) commentary in the journal ever since. I am in a train between Swan Hill and Melbourne right now, so cannot give any more details. However there is a wide range of views among scientists,beyond this one. I tend to agree about god of the gaps. Who knows what our clever consciousness will find out about itself in the future.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>While you and I are conscious, our minds are probably just a dead mechanism.<<

It all depends on what you call "consciousness" and what "mind". For instance, Penrose distinguishes between the former and "awareness", whereas e.g. the German language does not even have an equivalent of the word "mind".

Dear George,

I agree with Penrose: awareness is derived from the transitive verb, 'aware': one is aware OF something - or they do not, and clearly this can change at any moment.

Consciousness on the other hand, is always there, inherently whether or not there is currently an object that one is conscious of.

While an interesting question, there is no need for our purpose here to determine conclusively whether one's mind and one's brain are the same, overlapping or totally separate. According to some, the mind is made of some subtler matter, whereas according to others there is no such thing. Either way, no object - gross or subtle, is capable of consciousness (otherwise, plucking a teddy-bear's ear should have been punishable by jail).

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for sharing the gist of Penrose’s contemplation on consciousness which I, rightly or wrongly, consider an elementary biological function of all life forms.

As Darwin observed, even earth worms have a well-developed sense of consciousness because, based on his close observations, they have to make judgments about the kinds of leafy matter they use to block their tunnels. Plants, shrubs, trees and other vegetation also deploy quite sophisticated strategies with their environment in order to accomplish various vital functions such as pollination, self-defence, and capturing food.

Carnivorous plants are known to trap and feed on insects, spiders, lizards, sow bugs, tadpoles, and frogs, and even small mammals such as rats and rabbits. Although lacking an immune system comparable to animals, plants have developed a stunning array of structural, chemical, and protein-based defences designed to detect invading organisms and stop them before they are able to cause extensive damage.

It is the mechanism that triggers these elementary biological functions that I consider to represent a form of consciousness.

And, unless I am mistaken, the range and sensitivity of consciousness varies from one species to another, from one individual to another, and even varies within the life span of each individual.

In its more sophisticated, cognitive form, consciousness permits the perception of mental states, or so-called “qualia”, such as taste, smell, colour, feeling (the physical sensation) as well as the sense of movement produced when visioning a series of fixed images in rapid sequence – which appears to have permitted the subsequent development of the faculties of imagination and conceptualisation.

It is this perception of movement that we are capable of deriving from a series of static images that, in my opinion, pleads in favour of the hypothesis that, just as there is no “movement” in reality, there is no “mind” in reality that produces thought - simply physical matter.

I have not heard from Peter yet. I had hoped he might have taken a New Year’s resolution to respect his word but still no sign of Godot in 2017 ... not so far !

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks too for reacting, and Happy New Year to you. There are many definitions of consciousness but I have never heard it defined as “an elementary biological function of all life forms”. It is usually tailor-made to exhibit the quality that distinguishes humans from non-human animals and other life forms.

Penrose, for instance, devotes the whole of his Section 1.12 to a discussion of the terms awareness, understanding, consciousness and intelligence as he understands them. I cannot reproduce the lot here, only quote this (p.39):

“‘(U)nderstanding requires ‘awareness’. Awareness I take to be one aspect - the passive aspect - of the phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness has an active aspect also, namely the feeling of free will … the passive having to do with sensations (or ‘qualia’) … I take these to be two sides of a single coin.”

In particular, we speak of artificial intelligence (where computers come into play) not artificial consciousness or awareness.

I also remember, from somewhere else, a definition of consciousness as “awareness of being aware”. In this sense aparently non-human animals are aware (of their environment) without being aware of their awareness.

A group of chimpanzees is moving through the forest toward a grove of trees that is now seasonally bearing a favourite fruit. In their consciousness is there intent in their actions? Is there intent in their desire to assuage their hunger, to taste a delicious luxury food while forgoing the easily available more common, though less delicious comestibles along the way? Most importantly, are they aware that their actions are consciously intended? What tests can we apply that will decide the issue?

A housewife walks to the supermarket to buy groceries etc. In the governing context how are her actions different from the chimpanzee?

Atributions of awareness seem to fall glibly from the tongue and IMHO stem more from homocentricity than from a scientific desire for understanding.

Dear Pogi,

A housewife walking to a supermarket may have the impression that her actions are consciously intended.

For a chimpanzee, this seems less likely, but who knows?

Either way, the presence of such impressions tells us nothing about consciousness itself, only about the works of the brain/mind. Attribution of awareness is a mental process (involving memory and analysis) and as such is quite different from awareness itself, so it tells us nothing about the latter.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for your kind New Year’s greetings. I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year 2017 too. May all your wishes come true !

You wrote :

« There are many definitions of consciousness but I have never heard it defined as “an elementary biological function of all life forms”. It is usually tailor-made to exhibit the quality that distinguishes humans from non-human animals and other life forms »
.

Your words are sweet music to my ears, George. If, indeed, I have finally managed, after all these years, to have at least one, single, original idea during my lifetime - that is neither stupid nor easily refutable - then I feel that I am not just an umpteenth link in the chain of life that thinks predetermined thoughts it is programmed to think. I shall have also existed as an individual. Cogito ergo sum.

If the idea meets the dual test of originality and validity, it will have testified to the fact that nature has, indeed, endowed me with that more sophisticated, cognitive form of consciousness (than that of the more rudimentary forms of life) which I described in my previous post, and which you indicate some other authors refer to as “awareness of being aware”.

It remains to be seen if it meets the aforementioned dual test. Please feel free to choose your arms and fire away, George. I am a great admirer of your critical mind and perspicacity.

Same goes for anybody else who cares to take aim and fire a few shots. I extend an open invitation to all and sundry to participate in the collective slaughter. The more the merrier !

No offence taken ! No prize given !

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your response. However, I fail to see how it is relevant to Penrose’s (or other scientist’s) approach to the complicated (and rather ambiguous in scientific terms) concept of human consciousness (and awareness). In particular, how the “elementary biological function” that you associate with all sorts of living organisms (apparently including carnivorous plants) can be identified with what is referred to as “awareness of being aware” that you rightfully associate with the Latin cogitare, an activity - leading to all sorts of philosophical, artistic and scientific achievements, i.e. reactions to the environment - that only humans (human animals if you like) are known to be capable of.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

You indicate :

« I fail to see how … the “elementary biological function” that you associate with all sorts of living organisms … can be identified with what is referred to as “awareness of being aware” … that only humans … are known to be capable of »
.

I understand that the first form of life to appear on earth was the simplest, the smallest and also the most abundant of all life forms: the single cell bacterium. The biologists classify bacteria taxonomically as neither animals nor plants.

They have the ability to survive in extreme conditions by adapting to the environment and interacting with it. Like all living organisms, they need to eat for energy, for their development and for their reproduction. They can feed on a wide range of matter, especially starches and sugar, but also fungi, numerous waste products and even oil.

For the simplest living organism, the bacterium, to adapt itself appropriately to a particular environment, it has to be able to react to the characteristics of that environment. It can only adapt to them if it is “sensitive to” and “aware of” their presence. It is this “awareness” that we call “consciousness”.

At the other end of the spectrum, human cells have developed into considerably larger, more complex and far more sophisticated living organisms. The enhanced cognitive form of consciousness of human beings (which some authors refer to as “awareness of being aware”) has logically been produced as a result of the evolutionary development of the unicellular organisms of the earlier life forms from which our species derived.

This natural process of cellular evolution concerns all life forms and, as all life forms, without exception, interact with their environment, they may all be said to dispose of some form of mechanism whose function plays a role similar to that of so-called “consciousness” in human beings, even if it is quite rudimentary.

The examples of earth worms and carnivorous plants cited in my second last post illustrate this general principle.

.

Dear Banjo,

According to your definition, a self-driving car is probably aware of more things than a human driver, or would otherwise become so in the near future, yet there is no mystery about it, let alone "deep mystery".

If you kill your baby, and in some countries even your unborn baby who is generally asleep and not aware of anything, then you will spend the rest of your life in jail, whereas if you dismantle a self-driving car and sell the metal to the wreckers, no charges would be laid against you.

If it were useful, a car could even be programmed to be "aware that it is aware", and like the HAL computer in 2001: Space Odyssey, if you try to dismantle it, it would protest and resist and scream "don't kill me", yet if you proceed anyway, nobody suggests that you should be punished even like you killed a possum in your backyard.

This article is about consciousness rather than about functionality. Indeed, why would you need or promote functionality if no-one was ever conscious about it?

Dear Banjo,

>>It can only adapt to them if it is “sensitive to” and “aware of” their presence. It is this “awareness” that we call “consciousness”.<<

“Artificially intelligent” computers can also react to their environment, as Yuyutsu points out. Being aware of it, is something different, much more sophisticated, found only in advanced organisms. And being aware of this awareness - leading to cultural achievements of the mind listed above - is something even more sophisticated, of a "higher quality", found only in humans. I do not know who is the “we” who calls “ability to adapt to the environment” consciousness. So I could only repeat what I wrote before.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I wrote, I do not think a computer can be made aware of its awareness, i.e. become conscious of itself in a manner humans are. That conviction is after all the gist of Penrose’s book that I quoted from. And I do not think he is the only one who thinks so, certainly most theists do as well. And I would suspect also oriental mystics etc. HAL 2001 is not a real computer but science fiction.

My belief is that humans will be able to create more and more sophisticated computers (quantum computing?), approximating more and more human intelligence but never reaching it on the level of consciousness, thoiugh others have other beliefs on this. Like a brave doctor might be able to perform all kinds of operations on himself but not a brain surgery or a heart transplant. Or the inability to escape from a swamp by pulling yourself up by your own hair, as mentioned earlier.

Dear George,

Like you, I hope that HAL-like computers remain in the realm of science-fiction, but unlike you I cannot be sure of it.

In theory - and I hope that it always remains just "in theory", I could envisage computers that are even more intelligent than humans.
This would not make them any more conscious than a log of wood, a rock or a feather, only more intelligent.

Banjo's sense of "awareness" is of a functional nature - I rather call this property "appears to be aware". While neither HAL, nor any other computer, nor any physical object including the human body and its brain, can truly be aware of anything, the human brain does "appear to be aware" and thus I cannot exclude the dreadful possibility that computers might as well.

All I can do is to pray for divine intervention to stop this folly.

.

Dear George, Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you both for your comments and observations.

There are two thoughts that come to mind on reading your posts, but I am not sure of their pertinence :

The first is that you both indicate points of reference in the “hard” sciences, particular physics, whereas the topic in hand falls within the discipline of biology which is considered an “intermediate” science between the “hard” and “soft” sciences.

This troubles me a little because I am not sure of the pertinence of the rigid and limited possibilities of fixed, pre-conceived, pre-programmed mechanical and electronic systems as points of reference for living organisms that are self-sustaining, self-motivating, evolutive, and reproductive, with a large degree of autonomy, adaptability, flexibility and versatility. The two systems are so different, not just in their concepts, but even in their nature, structure, material composition, organisation, mode of functioning, complexity, sophistication and performance - that I wonder if we are not trying to compare apples with oranges.

The second thought that comes to my mind is of a more subtle and insidious in nature. There is nothing I can pinpoint in your writings to suggest it. It just seems to rise up from the tram of your texts like a waft of perfume that is barely perceptible.

For no apparent reason, I found myself trying to imagine as many objective factors as I could to justify the hierarchisation of different life forms - until I finally realised that I had unconsciously detected a vague perfume of anthropocentrism embedded in the tram of your texts.

You both make a clear, distinct separation between mankind and all other forms of life as though they constitute two totally different categories, completely independent of each other, with little in common. The presumption of human supremacy is evident. This also disturbs me. It evokes the spectre of racism and speciesism.

Happily, I subsequently discovered that, in reality, I share most of my genes with such sympathetic life companions as cows, chickens and bananas, along with many others.

.

.

Dear Banjo,

As far as I am concerned, the mystery of consciousness has nothing to do with science, soft or hard - rather, it was you who referenced science to begin with and we went along.

From my perspective, neither humans nor animals, nor computers, nor any other physical body or object, can be conscious or aware of anything. Rather, it is YOU and I who are conscious and aware - not our bodies, not our brains and not our minds.

Nevertheless, in my response to George, I went along with your definition. I clarified to him that what you call "aware", I call "appears to be aware", then we left aside the discussion of awareness and instead started discussing what/when/where can have this property that I call "appears to be aware", including even what/when/where can have this property of "appears to be aware that it is aware".

I agree with your observation that organisms that are self-sustaining, self-motivating, evolutive, and reproductive, with a large degree of autonomy, adaptability, flexibility and versatility - appear to be aware and in some cases even appear to be aware that they are aware.

It is my honest impression that humans and, so I dread, also advanced/futuristic computers, are capable of displaying this latter property while animals are less likely to display it. However, I would not feel sad for a moment if this is proven wrong.

In my view, having these two properties ("appearing to be aware" and "appearing to be aware of being aware") do not make their bearers superior in any way, because what interests me (and Peter Sellick also, I believe) is awareness and consciousness itself, rather than functionality and appearances - and in that regard, humans, animals, plants, microbes, genes, computers, brains, minds, chairs, are all equally dead matter with no ounce of awareness or consciousness in them.

Dear Banjo,

>> you both indicate points of reference in the “hard” sciences, particular physics, whereas the topic in hand falls within the discipline of biology<<

Remember, it was you who brought up the topic of consciousness and computers (not biology) by asking

>>Would you kindly indicate the evidence permitting to conclude that “computers will never reach consciousness” ?<<

Therefore I reacted by quoting from a standard book dealing with exactly this relation.

Of course, consciousness (the same as free will) is a fundamental enigma of human existence that philosophers, mystics, theologians, psychologists, quantum physicists, biologists, computer scientists etc have been trying to illuminate, if not unravel, each from his own perspective (you apparently prefer the biologist’s, Yuyutsu the mystic’s). It does not just “fall within the discipline” of any of these.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … it is YOU and I who are conscious and aware - not our bodies, not our brains and not our minds »

What are the entities “you” and “I” you refer to and what do you consider characterises their consciousness and awareness ?
.

You added :

« … what you call "aware", I call "appears to be aware" … »
According to the OED, “aware” means “having knowledge of, perception of, informed of”.

One is said to be “aware” when there is irrefutable evidence that one has knowledge or perception of something, or has been informed of it.

If there is no such evidence, but one’s acts, attitude etc., correspond to those of somebody who is “aware” of that something, then one is said to “appear to be aware” of it. It is only a presumption, not an established fact.
.

« It is my honest impression that humans and, so I dread, also advanced/futuristic computers, are capable of displaying this latter property [“appear to be aware that they are aware”] while animals are less likely to display it »

All present-day life forms and many domestic and industrial, computerised robots, already do – on the basis of the OED definition of the term “aware”.
.

As for the ideas expressed in the last paragraph of your post, I note your personal opinion. I understand that you do not consider something superior to another simply because of lack of interest.

.

.

Dear George,

.
You wrote :

« Of course, consciousness (the same as free will) is a fundamental enigma of human existence that philosophers, mystics, theologians, psychologists, quantum physicists, biologists, computer scientists etc have been trying to illuminate, if not unravel, each from his own perspective (you apparently prefer the biologist’s, Yuyutsu the mystic’s). It does not just “fall within the discipline” of any of these »

That’s correct, George. Historically, the psychologists appear to have been the first to undertake the study of consciousness. Today, Neuroscientists consider that it is a biological problem. They study the cerebral and neuronal features of the brain using neuropsychology and neurophysiology techniques, and brain imaging.

That, of course, does not prevent people from various other disciplines theorising on the subject as well.

.

Dear Banjo,

So your preferred context is neuroscience, which is more or less the same as the biologist’s perspective that I assumed you preferred. This is OK as long as you do not add something like “my theorising is better than yours (i.e. other scholars’)”. Most neuroscientists are not so supercilious about contributions to the enigma from specialists in other disciplines: just google “consciousness, neuroscience” (I got 3.1 million hits, apparently not all that sure about it).

Dear Banjo,

You and I are not entities. Consciousness is an aspect of our very own nature and awareness is when we focus on specific objects.

«According to the OED, “aware” means “having knowledge of, perception of, informed of”.»

Books have knowledge and information in them, but until and unless some-one reads them, no awareness is there, so a requisite for awareness to occur, is for there to be some-ONE, not just some-thing.

Clearly any body, human or otherwise, biological or otherwise, is only a thing because if desired, it could be broken down and analysed down to every single atom, every electric current and each and every other particle or wave, but nothing else would be found.

Children may honestly attribute awareness to puppets until they discover the strings and the puppeteer who pulls them. Adults are simply more experienced, but even they can occasionally be perplexed by a good ventriloquist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5ihmdlAk4

Take a transparent vase and place yellow flowers behind it: people might swear that the vase is yellow, but they would be wrong - the vase has no colour.

It can be argued that there is no life without awareness and no awareness without life. Your statement beginning with "All present-day life forms" assumes that life forms exist, but do they? We seem to be alive, but WHERE is this life? You cannot find it, no scientist ever has and no scientist ever will, for life is simply not in the form, any form. Life appears to be in the form only in the manner that the vase appears to be yellow.

One possible explanation, or one way to look at it, though overly simplified, is that "living" organisms are in some manner more transparent, less resistant to life than other bodies, thus allowing more life to shine through.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« So your preferred context is neuroscience, which is more or less the same as the biologist’s perspective that I assumed you preferred »

Please be assured that I have no personal preferences as to who should consider the study of consciousness as falling within his or her discipline. My approach is that of an open mind, void of any prejudices or pre-conceived ideas.

I simply look at the evidence and observe, for example, that Aristotle asserted that only humans had “rational souls”, while the “locomotive souls” shared by all animals, human and nonhuman, endowed animals with instincts suited to their successful reproduction and survival. Just as I observe that, two millennia later, Descartes' introduced the idea of a “reflex” to explain the behaviour of nonhuman animals. He apparently perceived animals as “reflex-driven machines”, with no intellectual capacities, and considered that this was sufficient to explain sensation and perception - aspects of animal behaviour we now associate with consciousness.

Also, as I observed in one of my previous posts, Darwin considered that earth worms possess cognitive faculties and consciousness because they have to make judgments about the kinds of leafy matter they use to block their tunnels. I also noted that the naturalists tell us that carnivorous plants demonstrate similar faculties.

It is evident that Kant and Freud also made important contributions to the study of consciousness, as did the biologists, Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman, the philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, the neurologist and philosopher Israel Rosenfield, and the distinguished mathematical physicist you kindly introduced me to, Roger Penrose.

It is not to deny the relevance and importance of any of these contributions, along with numerous others, to observe that, today, neuroscientists claim that “consciousness” is a biological problem. Their attitude has nothing to do with any preferences I might happen to have.

Quite frankly, I am quite indifferent as to which discipline takes the initiative of spearheading present or future research. Perhaps quantum physics has something interesting to say on the subject. I should be delighted if it did.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« You and I are not entities »

An “entity” is something which “is”. It derives from the Latin “esse”: be. Perhaps it is best understood in the negative form: “nonentity”, which means “is not”, “not real”, “imaginary”.

I consider that you and I are part of what we call reality, real people, not fake people or imaginary people.

If we consider that we are not entities, then we are two nobodies talking about nothing. I imagine that, like me, you prefer to discuss something rather than nothing, as one real person with another.
.

You add :

« Consciousness is an aspect of our very own nature and awareness is when we focus on specific objects »

In the sense that you employ the term, “nature” means “the innate or essential qualities or character of somebody or something”.

Awareness means “knowledge or perception of a situation or fact”. We can know something without necessarily having to “focus” on it and it does not have to be “specific objects”. It can be something immaterial such as information, for example.
.

« Books have knowledge and information in them … »

Knowledge is acquired through a complex cognitive process of perception, communication, and reasoning. Books do not “have” knowledge in them. They contain symbolic graphic representations we call language which may be perceived, communicated and understood by an intelligent observer capable of interpreting them.
.

« Your statement beginning with "All present-day life forms" assumes that life forms exist, but do they? We seem to be alive, but WHERE is this life? You cannot find it, no scientist ever has and no scientist ever will, for life is simply not in the form, any form »

The term “form”, in this context (“life forms”), does not refer to the notion of “shape”, “configuration” or “profile”, but designates a particular “type’ or “kind” (of life), its “special nature” or “distinguishing characteristics”.

Life is the self-sustaining process of the "life form".

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Life is neither matter nor energy nor some hypothetical supernatural element (such as a so-called “spirit” or “soul”, for example). It is a process, or an “animation” if you like, which we can easily observe and constantly do observe, every single day, right in front of our eyes.

The process is kick-started at conception and grinds to a halt when the vital organs that permit it to function wear out or suffer irremediable damage.

We just have to open our eyes to admire it in all its beauty.

Life, the splendour of nature !

.

Dear Banjo,

Apologies for wrongly assuming that you thought consciousness is to be dealt with only in its biology/neuroscience context (your reference to earth worms, carnivorous plants etc made me think so). Some people think that the enigma should be approached first of all from the problem of Artificial Intelligence (quantum computers), others pose it as a primarily philosophical question, as you stated, etc.

Of course, since human consciousness “runs on human brains” (like a software can be useful only if running on some hardware), what neuroscience - or science in general - can find out about the working of the brain, is very much relevant here. Where we differ is that I do not share your belief/faith that this is all there is to consciousness (in view of all those marvels of human arts, science and philosophy).

However, I think we have again begun to go around in circles, so it is best to leave it at that

Dear Banjo,

What we do not focus our attention on - we do not know.

Formerly-perceived objects can leave impressions in our brain, which we call "memory". Memories are physical formations (or modifications) within our brain (some claim also within our mind, but this wouldn't change the situation in principle, so let's keep it simple and include "mind" as part-of-our-brain). Suppose we saw a tiger - still there is no tiger in our brain, only a particular formation of neurons and the like, so even when we focus on a piece of memory in our brain that represents a tiger, we have no actual knowledge of that tiger, only of the memory that was formed in its wake.

Memory is not limited to direct sensory input, but also includes the results of digesting that input and collating it with former pieces of information. The brain's digestive process includes the application of logic, in which case we call the resulting type of memory a 'conclusion'.

Brains evolved for the sake of preserving, sustaining and reproducing the organisms they control. They are quite good at it, but finding the truth was never on evolution's priority-list because philosophy or theology do not save an organism from a tiger or find it a mate. On the other hand, it can be analysed and understood why conclusions such as "I exist", "I am a person", "I am a body", "I am separate from others", "I am alive", etc., were favoured by evolution to become some of the most common digestive-products of the brain.

The brain is a mechanism and is objective like any other body-part. A brain could probably operate mechanically for years and even reproduce its organism without anyone being aware, neither of its sensory input nor of its memories/modifications, yet such a mode of operation does not deserve the name "life". Advanced computers, so I fear, will be able to do the same, thus behave as if they were alive, even order their fingers to type intelligent articles and responses in this forum, but that would never in fact bring them to life.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Apologies for wrongly assuming that you thought consciousness is to be dealt with only in its biology/neuroscience context (your reference to earth worms, carnivorous plants etc made me think so) »

That’s OK, George. No harm done. Communication is not a solitary exercise and, whatever the endeavour, as soon as more than one person is involved, that’s when the incompréhensions, misinterpretations and misunderstandings creep in.

I cited earth worms and carnivorous plants as examples of animal and plant species that demonstrate a form of consciousness similar to that of human beings – just as domestic and industrial electronic robots are programmed to detect and react to their environment.

I consider that all these examples have a common denominator that is best described by the terms “awareness” and “consciousness”. They all demonstrate similar behavioural patterns, albeit on a vastly different scale in terms of autonomy and performance, ranging from very basic and rudimentary to highly complex and sophisticated.

You conclude :

« Where we differ is that I do not share your belief/faith that this is all there is to consciousness (in view of all those marvels of human arts, science and philosophy) »

My reference is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) which is generally regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. The OED defines “consciousness” as follows :

1. The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings
2. A person's awareness or perception of something
2.1 The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world

I adopt this definition in the interest of precision and accuracy, not because of any particular belief or faith.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Advanced computers, so I fear, will be able to do the same, thus behave as if they were alive, even order their fingers to type intelligent articles and responses in this forum, but that would never in fact bring them to life »

Who knows what the future will bring ? I, personally, am incapable of imagining it.

But, whatever it is, I am not afraid. Rightly or wrongly, I am confident that, in the long run, humanity will do whatever is in its best interests, despite all its defects and contradictions.

.