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.