Origin of consiousness?

[show_no_mercy]

How did conscious life come about?

[premjan]

Because simple reactive behaviors took too long to change via evolution. Initially neural feedback basically modulated behavior to inputs. Then some new neural connections grew that associated behavior with mental state instead of only inputs. At this point consciousness was (depending on your precise definition) born. The module that takes mental state and associates it with behavior could be called the consciousness module or ego or spectator or something like that.

[Doubting Didymus]

As far as I'm aware, the "hard" problem of consciousness remains unsolved.

So, we don't even know how conscious life comes about today, let alone how it originated.

[premjan]

Is there a reason why my explanation doesn't work / is incomplete?

[Doubting Didymus]

It's all good on paper to say we evolved "new neurons" that gave rise to consciousness, but that doesn't explain how we actually get from neurons to consciousness,

In other words, saying that brain processes evolved that produced phenomenal experience doesn't actually tell how they actually did it.

[Doubting Didymus]

Or, in other words, you've said how the brain processes might evolve, but not how we actually get from there to phenomenal experience. IOW, the hard problem of consciousness.

[premjan]

I don't think there is any (reductive) explanation to the phenomenal nature of consciousness other than to say that it exists, just as matter and energy exist. Perhaps there is a reductive explanation somewhere in hard physics, as a quantum looping or feedback effect or something.

[Doubting Didymus]

I don't think there is any (reductive) explanation to the phenomenal nature of consciousness other than to say that it exists, just as matter and energy exist.
Eh. You never know. The neurologists keep trying.

However, given that many/most people in relevant fields do not see any current explanation how phenomenal experience (i.e. consciousness) arises from brain processes, I find it fairly safe to say "we dont know how we have consiouness now, let alone how it originated in the first place".

[premjan]

Could consciousness be a property of an unusual electrical circuit perhaps?

[Doubting Didymus]

Could consciousness be a property of an unusual electrical circuit perhaps?
Could be anything, as far as I know. All I know about consciousness is that no-one knows how we get it.

[premjan]

Whatever it is, I would say it lacks reducible parts.

[Oxymoron]

The purpose of cognitive mind is to model the environment in order that the host organism can make decisions better aligned to its survival. As brains get bigger and more complex, the world can be represented internally in more detail and more complex inferences can be made using these models. Since each individual is an element of the world, it follows that "selfs" can also be modelled in greater detail, and inferences are more exact because a 'self' is party to vastly more information about its host than to others.

There are many driving forces behind bigger brains - the move towards socialisation with communities that have laws of their own requiring inference; the difficulty of walking upright on two legs; the fact that brute-force predators can be quite successful therefore escape becomes a matter of guile (and also the related food source problem).

[Oolon Colluphid]

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness? The only book I've read on the matter (Dennett is still on the shelves :(;)) -- Nicholas Humphrey's The Inner Eye -- argued that we have self-awareness / consciousness because we are such a massively competitive-social species. It is advantageous to be able to guess what another individual is going to do; one can do this by being able to put oneself in their position and imagine what I would do; and in order to tell what I would do, one needs a concept of self. A ‘theory of mind’, I think it gets called nowadays (Humphrey didn’t mention the term iirc). By being able to look inward, so to speak -- Humphrey’s ‘inner eye’ -- we can better predict others’ actions. Humans are natural born mind-readers.

Humphrey also argued that we are so good at this that we read consciousness into other creatures, whether they have it or not. A dog may look unhappy, but that’s just the signals it sends out to other pack members; it doesn’t need to feel unhappy for the signals to have the appropriate effect. The vast majority of animals are in fact ‘soft machines’, no more self-aware than a mechanical toy. The exceptions would likely be our nearest cousins, and perhaps some cetaceans -- critters that can pass the mirror test of recognising their reflection as not being another individual.

I don’t recall him discussing how this mechanism evolved, but then I read it back in 1988-ish... I can make an evolutionary prediction, though: we could look for rudimentary consciousness in other primates.

[Oxymoron]

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Until someone gives a definition of "consciouness", that's going to remain an unanswered question.

Here's my definition: "consciousness" == "snark"

[Y.B]

How did conscious life come about?

Gradually. :p

I think "consciousness", like "intelligence" and "life", are continuums, not black-and-white distinctions. That said, it's an interesting subject and explaining "consciousness" in general is a challenge for neuro-science and all that stuff.

[premjan]

I vote it is just a neural-electrical circuit of some kind.

[Oolon Colluphid]

And I say it's an emergent phenomenon. :D

[premjan]

what is an "emergent" phenomenon anyway? There ought to be some definable threshold of consciousness don't you think?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Yep. At about 6.30am, when the alarm goes off, I emerge into some vague form of consciousness, which becomes more pronounced after caffeine is administered. So the threshold lasts about as long as it takes for the kettle to boil.

[Oolon Colluphid]

By the way, I'm only half joking there. I'm not sure what sleep is, but those soft machines I referred to do it too. However, I'm suggesting (a la Humphrey) that sleepwalking is what animals do all the time; that sleepwalking is what it's like to be alive but without consciousness; and that gradually waking up while sleepwalking is analogous (or homologous?) to gaining consciousness.

[Oxymoron]

Yep. At about 6.30am, when the alarm goes off, I emerge into some vague form of consciousness, which becomes more pronounced after caffeine is administered. So the threshold lasts about as long as it takes for the kettle to boil.

This is conflating "consciousness" with "being awake". But they're not the same thing: when one is awake, one is self-aware, one is aware of external stuff. However when one dreams, one can be self-aware to some degree. And external events (sounds or the need to urinate) can be incorporated into the dream.

This is why "consciousness" is such an ill-defined concept. No wonder neurologists can't explain it, they don't even know what it means. Which suggests to me that the wrong questions are being asked. Such as the title of the OP - "what is the origin of that thing that I can't define, you know what I mean?"

[Oolon Colluphid]

This is conflating "consciousness" with "being awake".
That's why I asked above if there's difference between consciousness and self-awareness... ;)

But they're not the same thing: when one is awake, one is self-aware, one is aware of external stuff.
So what is the difference between being deeply asleep (non-REM dreaming, perhaps) and being unconscious? If self-aware = awake = conscious, then being asleep = unconscious, with dreams being only slightly less unconscious. :confused:

Agree with the rest. :cool:

[Oxymoron]

That's why I asked above if there's difference between consciousness and self-awareness... ;)

Hey, I get there in the end!


So what is the difference between being deeply asleep (non-REM dreaming, perhaps) and being unconscious? If self-aware = awake = conscious, then being asleep = unconscious, with dreams being only slightly less unconscious. :confused:


Even more confusingly, we are only aware of a small percentage of our dreams! So what is it to have a dream but not be "conscious" of it?

The reality is that betwixt our ears a great deal of data is being marshalled; some of it we are aware of; some of it we are not. But it is a mistake to suggest that consciousness is only the former, as recent experiments have shown that people can perform tasks dependent on "hidden" data.

Given the vast volume of data requiring assimilation (the visual field alone presents massive amounts, then there's auditory and nervous), our brains need to prioritise - decide what data gets paid attention and what can be rejected. If there is a hungry lion to the left and a cuddly duck to the right, the lion really ought to be noticed. There is an AI paradigm called "whiteboard" in which a number of agents bid for the right to perform a task by saying how good they think they will be at it. The nice thing about this is that classification problems of this sort are naturally undertaken by neural nets (ie brains). Our experience of existence is to be at the centre of a large number of information streams with programmable hardware that can inform us what to pay attention to, filter out "unnecessary" data (it can be wrong of course), to be able to interpret these information streams (rightly or wrongly) and to form dynamic models of the world and ourselves. The whole "consciousness" thing is a red herring to be avoided.

[EricK]

IMO consciousness is awareness of our awareness.

In other words, all animals have to be aware of their surroundings, but it is only when they become aware that they are aware of their surroundings that they can be said to be conscious.

Eric

[whichphilosophy]

How did conscious life come about?

Was it always there like energy. Or are they part of the same thing.
My view and we are all entitled to think differently if we say it was always there or it was not.

So the question would be is conciousness the driving force of energy or is energy the driving force of conciousness.

Regards

[RidgeBe]

Eric-

Right on: “consciousness is awareness of our awareness.�

But, there are multiple states of consciousness—unconscious; subconscious; preconscious; and consciousness. However the thresholds between them is not clear, and that line appears to change, constantly. Unconsciousness does not necessarily mean we are asleep. Awake we are aware of our surroundings and make hundreds of adjustments. Subconscious is mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness, but not immediately available to beings conscious. There is some research that this is the area of “ahah!� solutions to problems; we’ve actually been working on them without being aware that we are, and the solutions “burst through� when the solution is derived. Preconscious is mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness, but immediately available to being conscious. One of my favorite examples: have you ever driven a care many miles without remembering having driven it? You’ve engaged in complex psychomotor behaviors, but only dimly aware of those behaviors from time to time.

Consciousness appears to be indicated by self-recognition, as in seeing onself in the mirror. This has been shown in humans at about two years, the great apes (except gorillas), and dolphins. As a side effect, we learned to differentiate between us and them.

Thus, we slowly changed from automatically reacting to our environment to being able to parcel our reactions to our environment(s) into parallel but differently accessable segments of our mental capacity. In a gross analogy, we learned to walk and chew gum at the same time; a great survival characteristic.

[Doubting Didymus]

How the heck did this Humphrey feller argue that dogs aren't really conscious?

[Ojuice5001]

Humphrey also argued that we are so good at this that we read consciousness into other creatures, whether they have it or not. A dog may look unhappy, but that’s just the signals it sends out to other pack members; it doesn’t need to feel unhappy for the signals to have the appropriate effect. The vast majority of animals are in fact ‘soft machines’, no more self-aware than a mechanical toy. The exceptions would likely be our nearest cousins, and perhaps some cetaceans -- critters that can pass the mirror test of recognising their reflection as not being another individual.



Even if a dog isn't self-aware, surely "soft machine" isn't an appropriate term. I think the mirror test is rather ill-conceived anyway; I'm sure it measures something, but why would it measure self-consciousness? Maybe a bird really does walk up to a mirror and say, "Look, there's a whole other room in here. There's a guy who looks just like me." (Jerry Seinfeld reference) Not to mention that it is hopelessly biased in favor of animals that rely on vision.

But even if they don't have self-awareness, they would surely have awereness. Given the complexity of our own awareness, I don't see how some analogue could fail to exist in creatures as much like ourselves as a hyena. After all, hyena hunger appears to operate in the same way as human hunger. Both of them create a buildup of chemicals in the brain that goes away when the animal eats, and no sooner.

A concept of the self is not needed for awareness. A human understands that scalding yourself on boiling water is a change that affects himself, but the water boiling ten feet away is a change that takes place in the external world. But a creature could be aware of both even if it didn't make that distinction. In other words, a human is self-aware. A snake is aware. A river is probably not aware at all (although there's no way to tell for sure).

[Doubting Didymus]

A river is probably not aware at all (although there's no way to tell for sure).

Mirror test.

[Stumpjumper]

Just going offline but you might find this link helpful Chalmers (http://consc.net/online.html). The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved and is basically how physical processes in our brain give rise to subjective experience. A purely materialistic answer (IMHO) far from being reached.

[Ojuice5001]

Mirror test.

Um, I rejected the mirror test because I think a creature could be aware of things without being able to pass a mirror test. For instance, take Jerry Seinfeld's stupid bird. It fails the mirror test, even though it's thinking thoughts as complex as, "Isn't that unusual! I just met a bird that mimicks my actions exactly." This bird is stupid (and hypothetical), but obviously it is aware of many things. Therefore, you can't say that anything that fails the mirror test is aware of absolutely nothing.

Or consider this. A computer programmer could easily construct a program that would pass the digital equivalent of the mirror test. Just write a program that can read lines of text, and can recognize the lines of computer code that constitute that same program. There would be no more and no less than enough "breathing room" to avoid any danger of the program catching itself in an infinite loop.* Would that program have awareness, while all other programs have no more awareness than an abacus?

*This does mean that it would be recognizing programs very similar to itself, not programs exactly like itself. But that's not a problem, because my reflection in a mirror is also not exactly like me. It's reversed from left to right.

[Doubting Didymus]

Yeh, sorry. It was a joke.

[Ojuice5001]

No biggie. You spurred me on to write a post that I think refutes the mirror test conclusively. And even if the mirror test infallibly measured for a self-concept, there are other things to be aware of, besides the difference between the self and the external world. An animal could still be aware of these.

[Prof]

Just going offline but you might find this link helpful Chalmers (http://consc.net/online.html). The hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved and is basically how physical processes in our brain give rise to subjective experience. A purely materialistic answer (IMHO) far from being reached.

You don't think D. Dennet has provided a possible answer? If not, why not?

Just curious.

Prof.

[Hartke]

Does anyone here believe that consciousness is made of matter or is non-material in nature?

[Y.B]

Does anyone here believe that consciousness is made of matter or is non-material in nature?

I think a lot of people here believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Like "life" or "intelligence".

[whichphilosophy]

Because simple reactive behaviors took too long to change via evolution. Initially neural feedback basically modulated behavior to inputs. Then some new neural connections grew that associated behavior with mental state instead of only inputs. At this point consciousness was (depending on your precise definition) born. The module that takes mental state and associates it with behavior could be called the consciousness module or ego or spectator or something like that.

Turn this back to front and say the conciousness generated the chain reaction you nmentioned. But even something that reacts is concious, hence reacts.

The origins of life is a great chicken and egg mystery.

[whichphilosophy]

I think a lot of people here believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Like "life" or "intelligence".
Or matter is the property of conciousness. Either way who is to say who is wrong.

[Doubting Didymus]

I think a lot of people here believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Like "life" or "intelligence".

Not neccessarily. the hard problem prevents me from being able to 'believe' anything about it, more or less. I can't tell exactly what it would mean to say that my subjective phenomenal experience is "made of" matter.

[RBH]

Does anyone here believe that consciousness is made of matter or is non-material in nature?Consciousness is not, IMO, a thing that "is made of" something or other. It's an adjective -- "conscious" -- a property of an (appropriately arranged) aggregation of matter and energy. Calling an organism "conscious" is akin to calling a river "meandering". "Meandering" isn't a thing -- it's a pattern of a physical system, embodied in a physical system, and has no existence outside a matter and energy embodiment. When we refer to organisms as "conscious" we're identified some properties/behaviors that we take the organism to display. Going from that to the noun form -- "consciousness" -- and talking about it as though it had some sort of independent existence is a giant leap. And an illegitimate leap, IMO.

RBH

[whichphilosophy]

Does anyone here believe that consciousness is made of matter or is non-material in nature?
A lot believe this.
My own view is that conciousness by way of its existence is capable of creatring thought into matter. The thought could be energy.

What I am saying here is when looking at athesim and theism there is actually not a lot of difference when looking at our origins. It's just how we think the sequence of events took place.

I spoke at lenght in the past to a lady atheist who is a botanist. She looked at things in exactly the same way I did. She feels that the athiest answer is the only answer. I felt the theist one is.

This is taking aside creationism and religions rites etc which do not address the question of how we actually came about. At the same time it is up to the individual to believe in evolution ID or creationism. Evolution makes more sense regardless of an atheist or theist viewpoint.

[whichphilosophy]

Until someone gives a definition of "consciouness", that's going to remain an unanswered question.

Here's my definition: "consciousness" == "snark"

We could look at the state of being concious ie aware. And is the very unit in our existence, the awareness unit US?

[RidgeBe]

Prof-

I read Dr. Dennett’s book “Consciousness Explained� and at the end, hummed the Peggy Lee song “Is that all there is?� He described consciousness in an almost existentialist mode; that is, not what it is, but what it is not. To me, it was deeply disappointing, as much as I respect Dennett.

To all others-

Like you, I have trouble with the mirror test. It was mentioned because it is a ubiquitous test of consciousness. Perhaps with gains in the precision of fMRI, and its miniaturization, we can get more precise indications of when various phases of consciousness occur.

[Oxymoron]

We could look at the state of being concious ie aware. And is the very unit in our existence, the awareness unit US?

As I've already stated, it has been demonstrated in experiments that we can act upon things which we are not "aware" of.

Give up on "consciousness". The fact that it is so hard - nay impossible - to define is a big clue that we are barking up the wrong tree, and certainly precludes us having any meaningful discussion about it. And letting it go is very liberating. Think instead of information flow, filtration and marshalling; adaptive models of the world and self and self's relationship with world; think of our brains as the union of very old instinctual systems with very new cognitive systems that can make sense of the world in a pattern-matching way (and that struggle to come to terms with behaviour dictated by the old systems because they are based on reaction, not inference). All human behaviour can be broadly understood in these terms; why add unnecessary meaningless terms?

[Sven]

Even if a dog isn't self-aware, surely "soft machine" isn't an appropriate term. I think the mirror test is rather ill-conceived anyway; I'm sure it measures something, but why would it measure self-consciousness? Maybe a bird really does walk up to a mirror and say, "Look, there's a whole other room in here. There's a guy who looks just like me." (Jerry Seinfeld reference)
But that's not the mirror test. AFAIK, it includes painting a spot on the animal and look if it reacts to it, e.g., apes trying to rub it off. This means that the animal really understands that it sees itself in the mirror.

[Sven]

Or consider this. A computer programmer could easily construct a program that would pass the digital equivalent of the mirror test. Just write a program that can read lines of text, and can recognize the lines of computer code that constitute that same program. [...] Would that program have awareness, while all other programs have no more awareness than an abacus?

Yes, I indeed think so. Because awareness is simply defined like this. *shrug*

[Sven]

I think a lot of people here believe consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Like "life" or "intelligence".
Don't waste your breath on Hartke. This has been discussed to death with him at least three times here, but he still refuses to accept that "non-material" not automatically means "supernatural".

[Oolon Colluphid]

How the heck did this Humphrey feller argue that dogs aren't really conscious?
Well as I said it's been ages...

The reasoning was, I think, that we don't asssume something exists unless we have evidence for it (may be impossible, in this case; combined with the suggestion that what consciousness (or at least the 'inner eye') is, is an ability to look inward (being aware of being aware), and project that outward onto others.

If that's what it's for, it might well get misapplied. We know it can be: it is too easy to imagine a plant suffering if it's left unwatered: it can 'look rather sad; it may be easily thought cruel to dissect a live snail; we can curse our computers for crashing and feel that our cars are not starting just to spite us, even when we know rationally they are 'hard machines'. We are empathisers; we could well be empathising with things that cannot return the favour. We read emotional states where they aren't really.

(I wonder if Stephen Hawking's dog can recognise when he's angry?)

Is something conscious just because it's living? Surely not, unless one contemplates conscious bacteria. So the default position is that organisms are indeed soft machines, with varying degrees of processing power, information feedback into behaviour, and so on. Lack of consciousness is plesiomorphic, and consciousness is apomorphic.

So at what point did consciousness evolve along the goo-to-you (;)) line? What creatures might we expect to have it? Evolutionarily, only those that need it. Where just sending out signals to others is insufficient, where there is a pressing need to understand what's going on inside another's head. Well, we at least are conscious; the question then becomes, how widely around our bit of the evolutionary bush do we cast our net when ascribing consciousness? What other creatures have this synapomorphic feature? Chimps and gorillas, likely. Other apes, less likely; monkeys, less likely still, and so on.

Of course, we'd expect something complex to have come about gradually, and likely be present in lesser degrees in more distant relations. But how far back does self-awareness run? To the last common ancestor of primates and carnivores? That'd be pushing it, surely? So, speculatively, dogs are no more conscious than an ant, they just seem to be because we are empathisers -- and find it easier to empathise with our fellow mammals than with arthropods, plants, machines...

Unless, of course, consciousness is easy to evolve, and has evolved convergently elsewhere (dolphins?)... or dates back a very long way. But I find it hard to see why a rat needs to know what's going on inside another rat's head. Or a dog, come to that.

Something like that, anyway... ;)

[Prester John]

Conciousness is an emergent phenomenum!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/



Emergent structures are patterns not created by a single event or rule. There is nothing that commands the system to form a pattern, but instead the interactions of each part to its immediate surroundings causes a complex process which leads to order. One might conclude that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts because the emergent order will not arise if the various parts are simply coexisting; the interaction of these parts is central.

A biological example is an ant colony. The queen does not give direct orders and does not tell the ants what to do. Instead, each ant reacts to stimuli in the form of chemical scent from larvae, other ants, intruders, food and build up of waste, and leaves behind a chemical trail, which, in turn, provides a stimulus to other ants. Here each ant is an autonomous unit that reacts depending only on its local environment and the genetically encoded rules for its variety of ant. Despite the lack of centralized decision making, ant colonies exhibit complex behavior and have even been able to demonstrate the ability to solve geometric problems. For example, the ant colonies routinely find the maximum distance from all colony entrances to dispose of dead bodies.


Emergent behaviour are non predictable by examing its component parts. A good example is a water crystal, you could not predict their formation with just knowledge of the properties of H2O. The manner of formation is interesting too, because the change from a chaotic state to an ordered state happens virtually instantaneously. There is mathematical modelling/demonstrations for emergence , infact the second link i provided demonstrates emergence in a simple game.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Emergent behaviour are non predictable by examing its component parts.
Which is why I think the neurons-up approach may be doomed, and why I've been thinking in terms of what-it's-for down...

[Prester John]

Which is why I think the neurons-up approach may be doomed, and why I've been thinking in terms of what-it's-for down...

Exactly, this is what you would expect from the emergence model.

[Stumpjumper]

You don't think D. Dennet has provided a possible answer? If not, why not?

Just curious.

Prof.

I have not read anything by Dennet previously but I did find this article this morning Dennet (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/churchland.htm) and he seems to be arguing that animals are not conscious. I skim read the article. I have read a few articles by David Chalmers and Christof Koch and they will admit that we are far from solving how consciousness emerged. In the words of Koch: "The subjects on whom these experiments are performed are already conscious..So the most we can reasonably expect from this research is an explanation of how, within a brain that is already conscious, we can cause this or that perceptual experience...In my view we will not understand consciousness until we understand how the brain creates the conscious field to begin with."

I believe that some form of panspychism or panexperientialism might be required to answer the hard problem. David Ray Griffin has written some articles that I have read and with which I am in agreement.

[Oxymoron]

Exactly, this is what you would expect from the emergence model.

Isn't the emergence model saying exactly what I'm saying then? That "consciousness" is just a loose label for the union of a large number of phenomena, and that the question of origin is supremely trivial?

[Prester John]

Isn't the emergence model saying exactly what I'm saying then? That "consciousness" is just a loose label for the union of a large number of phenomena, and that the question of origin is supremely trivial?

I'd suggest your description was of the processes that form our conciousness whilst emergence accounts for how the processes arise from a mass of neurons. I do not claim to be authoritative on the issues tho :)

[Doubting Didymus]

Oolon, old fruit. I don't suppose you could clarify for me whether your description of humpy's ideas is talking about self awareness specifically, or consciousness more generally, as in any kind of subjective phenomenal experience. I'm having a hard time buying the argument that a dog is no more conscious than an ant.

[premjan]

So if consciousness is an emergent macroscopic phenomenon pretty much similar to the way water crystallizes (ex nihilo or without warning) it probably means that the potential for any matter-energy to attain consciousness is present, and only the right type of complex organization has to be present? Or perhaps rudimentary consciousness is present in many organisms but the level of consciousness rises as the complexity of appropriate information processing is found present.

I find it fairly compelling to consider animals to be somehow "sleepwalking" through their experience, partially conscious compared to us, but some of us are more aware than others of us as well...There is all the enlightenment debate on the religious side too, after all.

[Oxymoron]

I'd suggest your description was of the processes that form our conciousness whilst emergence accounts for how the processes arise from a mass of neurons. I do not claim to be authoritative on the issues tho :)

Artificial neural networks are well understood. It's hard to say whether their behaviours are truly emergent: one can easily write an equation and algorithm for how an neural network works, but that algorithm says nothing about what the network actually does. That depends upon the activation functions chosen for the neurons, the inputs, the number of hidden layers, and the interconnection of the layers. We see analogues of this in the brain. For example, the trunking taking visual data from the optic nerve is in fact a neural network that performs important pre-processing of data.

Of course, neural networks have to be trained. Which can be lengthy, and whilst we certainly learn to see in 3D colour, we don't start from random. Either some self-organisation occurs, or there is genetic hard-wiring. We don't understand the mechanisms for these things, but with regards to the former, one might consider that to be emergent behaviour of some lower-level process.

Brains are therefore straightforward to understand conceptually. What makes the real work tricky is (a) the vast scale of the networking; (b) the amount of specialisation of neural hardware makes a generic answer impossible; (c) experiments used to be very hard, now with modern scanners they are just hard.

The only real reason I mention all of this is that the label "emergent" seems to actually preclude an understanding of what goes on, whereas I am of the opinion that we understand enough of the general mechanism to say slightly more.

[Oxymoron]

So if consciousness is an emergent macroscopic phenomenon pretty much similar to the way water crystallizes (ex nihilo or without warning) it probably means that the potential for any matter-energy to attain consciousness is present, and only the right type of complex organization has to be present? Or perhaps rudimentary consciousness is present in many organisms but the level of consciousness rises as the complexity of appropriate information processing is found present.

Please define the term I have highlighted in bold :)

(seriously!)

[Oolon Colluphid]

DD, it's at least fifteen years since I read 'Humpy', so without checking I cannot say for sure. He is talking about self-awareness for sure, that being the titular 'inner eye'. I have since taken it that consciousness was fairly synonymous with self-awareness Humph certainly talked about awareness of pain versus reacting to it.

But I remember too from the short TV series (which I have on tape still, and shortly will be able to transfer to DVD if you're interested) him sitting in a chair with his border collie (iirc) at his feet, wondering if he was reading far more into its expressions than was really going on in its mind. The episode was called 'The Ghost in the Machine'.

The prog was also the first time I heard of Dawkins, as he was a talking head on it saying how NH's ideas seemed reasonable. I then went on to read Selfish Gene, and remember that Dawkins's description of a guided missile chimed well with the 'unconscious, complex soft machine' idea.... this means that it was more like 1986 when I encountered this stuff, and in 20 years I might have totally screwed it up!

More on Nick Humphrey at:
www.lse.ac.uk/people/n.humphrey@lse.ac.uk
www.humphrey.org.uk
www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/humphrey.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey

I expect you'll get a kick out of this (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html) and this (http://www.humphrey.org.uk/Papers/2002BeholdTheMan.pdf) (pdf) (off-topic) articles ;).

Ah. I see from this article (http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/s-Ch.11.html) that things may have changed in 20 years...
What is it like to be ourselves? How can a piece of matter which is a human being be the basis for the experience each one of us recognizes as what it's like to be us? How can a human body and a human brain also be a human mind?

I've put forward several different answers in the last few years, and I'm no longer happy with the earlier ones. I was interested in introspection, and our intuitive knowledge of inner states of mind. I developed a theory of "reflexive consciousness," and I thought, basically, that reflexive consciousness is all that counts. You either have introspective knowledge of your own states of mind or you're not conscious at all. If this were right, consciousness would be a very high-level faculty. It might be something that has evolved only in the great apes and human beings. I suggested that it has evolved specifically to enable people to read their own and other people's minds — and so to become better "natural psychologists." This idea went down well with many people. When I published Consciousness Regained and The Inner Eye, colleagues like Richard Dawkins were full of enthusiasm: "I think Humphrey's got it! At last we have an answer to the big question: how human consciousness evolved."

I thought I'd done a good job on it. But there were problems. One of the consequences of this particular view of consciousness — consciousness identified with introspection and self reflection — was that it meant one had to exclude from the club of conscious beings a whole lot of animals, babies, and other more primitive organisms, which don't have this level of self reflection. The more I tried to persuade myself that, say, a rabbit in pain or a baby crying for its mother can't be conscious because they don't possess the ability to introspect, the more I got dissatisfied. I couldn't sell this idea even to myself, let alone to my nonphilosophical friends.

Seems I have some catching up to do... :o

[premjan]

Please define the term I have highlighted in bold :)
(seriously!)
Ah, if it is emergent, it is hard to explain or describe isn't it? But we sort of know what it is, often, if we resist the urge to simply be instantly skeptical.

BTW, I am not a splitter: I don't think of awareness and consciousness and ponder the difference. There is just one thing, which I choose to label consciousness, which gives me a sense of existence (define that if you will) and identity and ability to adjust my attitudes and activities and stuff like that.

BTW, if you are able to create a complex computer program that shows similar emergent behavior (coming up with things it was in no way explicitly programmed for) it would be conscious. Let's say we ask if it is conscious and it says it is, and talks like us about it.

[Oxymoron]

But we sort of know what it is, often, if we resist the urge to simply be instantly skeptical.

This is useless for scientific or philosophical enquiry.

[premjan]

This is useless for scientific or philosophical enquiry.
Let's compare with other questions: what is life?

[Doubting Didymus]

Seems I have some catching up to do... :o
Here I was about to criticise the guy for identifying consciousness generally with self awareness specifically, only to find he's already done it himself!

Ta muchly for the information.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Please define the term I have highlighted in bold :)

(seriously!)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conscious

I don't see much wrong with this:

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.

Well, just about any living thing could be said to have awareness of its environment -- part of the definition of being alive is reacting to it, and you can't do so if you don't 'notice' it, yeah? :D

So let's concentrate on "awareness of one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts". IOW, self-awareness. Is a guided missile aware? I'd have thought it is possible to have sensations, react to them, etc etc, without being aware of them, in the same way as this 'ere computer can carry out tasks without realising what it's up to.

But I'm both out of my depth now (nothing new), and I tend towards agreeing with uber-cynic Steve Jones in the link above I gave:
I have a problem with scientists who spend most of the time looking at their own navels, trying to define what it is they're supposed to be studying. It's like a game where both teams stand around arguing about what the rules are supposed to be. That's the difficulty with the "consciousness" game. Just how do you play it, and where's the goal? Is there a goal at all — or even a game? Define what a problem is in terms accessible to a layman, and you have the beginnings of a science. If you can't, you have nothing but a series of opinions.

My feeling about most people in that field is that they'd find life more interesting if they continued to do what most of them started by doing — getting their feet wet by doing experimental work.

[...]

Nick Humphrey is going into fields I don't find interesting. The consciousness field, the meaning-of-life field — it's always left me cold.

[premjan]

I think consciousness is a complex systems concept, not unlike "life" or, farther afield, "justice".

It is definable in many cases, though a full definition would probably require a long laundry list of exceptions.

[Oxymoron]

Let's compare with other questions: what is life?

I didn't say it was the only useless question!

[premjan]

Enough to be alive, and conscious perhaps? One day we may be able to create both and then we will stop wondering what it is. The fact that we can formulate questions does not automatically make it fruitful to pursue them.

[Oxymoron]

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

Well, OK. But rather than coming up with a list of counter-examples, it's better to observe that an ability to model self in sufficient detail goes hand-in-hand with the ability to model the external world in high detail. (One has to be careful of avoiding the infinite regress here: being aware, and being aware that one is aware, and being aware of the awareness that one is aware... clearly we do not get stuck in a Halting Problem scenario, so most likely models of self are not detailed enough to contain a modelled model).

In other words, the more useful questions are: how come humans can represent the world in detail, store and retrieve memory so quickly, how do we represent 'self' internally (we already know that we have a mental map of our bodies, used for resolving localised never stimuli and locomotion). And so on. The 'consciousness' discussion is just Bullshit from a bovine that binged Red Herrings.


But I'm both out of my depth now (nothing new), and I tend towards agreeing with uber-cynic Steve Jones in the link above I gave:

He has a point!

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Mayhap the simplest definition of consciousness is anything that rests, or sleeps.

[Oxymoron]

Mayhap the simplest definition of consciousness is anything that rests, or sleeps.

That might be the definition of 'an entity that has consciousness'; but it does not define what consciousness is at all.

Remember, one is still aware of things even when dreaming. And one can be 'unaware' of things when awake yet still act upon them ('Zombie' phenomena).

[Oolon Colluphid]

Remember, one is still aware of things even when dreaming. And one can be 'unaware' of things when awake yet still act upon them ('Zombie' phenomena).
Is a sleepwalker awake? Is he/she conscious?

Sorry, I'll shut up again... :o

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

That might be the definition of 'an entity that has consciousness'; but it does not define what consciousness is at all.

Remember, one is still aware of things even when dreaming. And one can be 'unaware' of things when awake yet still act upon them ('Zombie' phenomena).
Correct: a simple test for consciousness could be determined by whether a thing has a resting or sleeping cycle.

Are you actually going to start sermoning the "perception is merely a map" dogma again here? :confused:

OTIK

[Prester John]

The only real reason I mention all of this is that the label "emergent" seems to actually preclude an understanding of what goes on, whereas I am of the opinion that we understand enough of the general mechanism to say slightly more.

The problem is emergent systems are resistant to reductive investigation. If a system is more than the sum of it parts then just looking at the parts doesn't tell us the whole picture. And yes describing conciousness as emergent doesn't really help in itself but it does suggest that what should be examined is the component parts and their interactions, especially the interactions. Simple mechanistic examination/description will not unravel the emergent system, its like trying to explain water crystals in terms of hydrogen bonds. Carrying on the water example, try to predict the properties of H2O from H and O seperately. This is the problem faced when trying to describe conciousness in terms of neurons. I could be wrong tho!

[Oxymoron]

try to predict the properties of H2O from H and O seperately

um, doesn't it follow directly? I thought that was the whole point of chemistry :)

A model that incorporates electrostatic forces, van der Waal's, and hydrogen bonding with knowledge of the atomic weights of H and O will presumably yield a liquid.

Of course, fluid dynamics is another issue :D Is this what you meant? It's perhaps too much to ask if one can use Quantum Electrodynamics to predict (say) how much beer you can drink before falling over - even though it is almost completely determined by QE! In other words, using the appropriate level of description is vital. Then again, so is defining the actual behaviour you're trying to explain before attempting to explain it.

[Oxymoron]

Correct: a simple test for consciousness could be determined by whether a thing has a resting or sleeping cycle.

Hmmm... if they are synonymous, I'm not sure what one gains really.


Are you actually going to start sermoning the "perception is merely a map" dogma again here? :confused:

Maybe. Depends if it's relevant.

[Prester John]

um, doesn't it follow directly? I thought that was the whole point of chemistry :)

A model that incorporates electrostatic forces, van der Waal's, and hydrogen bonding with knowledge of the atomic weights of H and O will presumably yield a liquid.

Of course, fluid dynamics is another issue :D Is this what you meant? It's perhaps too much to ask if one can use Quantum Electrodynamics to predict (say) how much beer you can drink before falling over - even though it is almost completely determined by QE! In other words, using the appropriate level of description is vital. Then again, so is defining the actual behaviour you're trying to explain before attempting to explain it.

Would it tho, i'm not convinced that you could predict the properties of water using just the properties of H and O. You wouldn't know it was going to be a liquid between 0 an 100 C at pressure equivalent to sea level, unless you make it and test it. Fluid dynamics is also emergent !! Otherwise i agree and that you need to use an appropriate level of decription rather than reducing everything to quantum mechanics shows that something happens more than simple mechanical interactions. Emergence steps the natural universe away from being a clockwork universe.

[premjan]

I guess emergence could be a result of complexity.

[Cross_]

I guess emergence could be a result of complexity.
Not everything that is complex will display emergent properties and there are some rather simple systems that show emergence (Lindenmayer-Systems or other Artificial Life sims come to mind).

[wdog]

I agree prester, and furthermore I believe once computers reach a certain threshold computing power, consciousness will emerge.

I think emergent behavior can be thought of as simply more states available in behavior state space, consciousness simply requires X amount of computing power which provides the necessary degrees of freedom

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Hmmm... if they are synonymous, I'm not sure what one gains really.
What I meant was, if a living thing has a sleeping state, it has conscious state as well. Of course they aren't synonymous phenomena, unless you are yourself a sleepwalker.


Maybe. Depends if it's relevant.
It's not only irrelevant, it's not real.

But...if you insiste, senor Oxymoron.

[premjan]

Even if thought and perception are just maps, it still does not answer the question of how to come up with the best maps.

[Y.B]

Not everything that is complex will display emergent properties and there are some rather simple systems that show emergence (Lindenmayer-Systems or other Artificial Life sims come to mind).

Or just water. Hydrogen or oxygen aren't wet, but their right combination, water, is.

[Oxymoron]

Even if thought and perception are just maps, it still does not answer the question of how to come up with the best maps.

"best" in what sense?

[premjan]

In a large variety of senses involving complexity: how to play chess or navigate or recognize grandma, and so on.

[Oxymoron]

In a large variety of senses involving complexity: how to play chess or navigate or recognize grandma, and so on.

there is no precendent for thinking of these as optimal - only good enough, given a suitable context.

[premjan]

Or best of available alternatives...such as the "best" chess player.

[Oxymoron]

Or best of available alternatives...such as the "best" chess player.

local extrema, the bane of science.

[premjan]

All extrema are local in one sense or another.

[Oxymoron]

All extrema are local in one sense or another.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. You are the weakest link; goodbye :p

y=x^2. Global minimum at x=0. Period.

[premjan]

Except within the imagination.

[Oxymoron]

Except within the imagination.

Sure, we can all imagine things that have no correspondence to reality. So what?

[premjan]

Local vs. global extrema is not a "problem" in my mind. It is just a fact that some extrema are more global and others less global, and we need some context (knowledge) to decide which is which.

[whichphilosophy]

Sure, we can all imagine things that have no correspondence to reality. So what?

Einstein said `Logic will take you from A to B, Imagination will take you everywhere.`

[whichphilosophy]

I guess emergence could be a result of complexity.

we could say the complexity (which increased through time) began with simplicity... to this point in time.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Would it tho, i'm not convinced that you could predict the properties of water using just the properties of H and O. You wouldn't know it was going to be a liquid between 0 an 100 C at pressure equivalent to sea level, unless you make it and test it. Fluid dynamics is also emergent !! Otherwise i agree and that you need to use an appropriate level of decription rather than reducing everything to quantum mechanics shows that something happens more than simple mechanical interactions. Emergence steps the natural universe away from being a clockwork universe.So if consciousness is an emergent property, it's enough to know that we each have one, or else wouldn't be discussing it. Who cares how it came about or what a particular neuron has to do with it?

The "appropiate level of description" is simply acknowledging that we each have consciousness, as do/will many other forms of life.

Defining what is absolutely and totally a personal experience seems more like philosophy or mathematics than science. Hint #1: The consciousness is itself; not a map, model, reproduction, or representation of anything else, including itself...

Regards,
Odysseus

[premjan]

Maybe the subjective experience of consciousness (or other subjective experiences) then is not surprising, only the extent of it is surprising, where humans have a very versatile consciousness in comparison with most other organisms. The reason we experience cosciousness is simply because we have neural feedback, and even a computer has a subjective sensation of being "itself" just that that sensation is not yet too advanced as the feedback is not as great as for a person.

IOW, when computers achieve intelligence they should be accorded the same rights as humans.

[Oxymoron]

Maybe the subjective experience of consciousness (or other subjective experiences)

The only way out of the infinite regress that this statement implies (ie the need to be conscious of being conscious) is to state that what is labelled as "consciousness" is simply subjective experience. I have no problem with that as such - my goal being to remove the notion of "consciousness" as having any meaning worth investigating philosophically and - more importantly - scientifically.

Otherwise: I'm still waiting for a philosophically or scientifically precise definition of consciousness. And this is the umpteenth thread I've asked the question in.

[premjan]

Subjective experience is consciousness. Yes. Just with the experience of X part varying.

I find it is sort of like qualia. One of those things that is immediate apparent from "I think therefore I am", but hard to really define precisely. Maybe we could use the qualia notion and say consciousness is that by virtue of which there is something like what it is to be you (or equally another person).

[Oxymoron]

I find it is sort of like qualia.

Please, let's keep this a qualia-free zone. A more pointless and intellectually cul-de-sac-ish notion I've yet to encounter.

[premjan]

How can you be precise about "I think therefore I am"?

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

The only way out of the infinite regress that this statement implies (ie the need to be conscious of being conscious) is to state that what is labelled as "consciousness" is simply subjective experience. I have no problem with that as such - my goal being to remove the notion of "consciousness" as having any meaning worth investigating philosophically and - more importantly - scientifically.

Otherwise: I'm still waiting for a philosophically or scientifically precise definition of consciousness. And this is the umpteenth thread I've asked the question in.This would be the umpteenth time that I've provided exactly that- a definition of consciousness on various threads. It's too complicated to get into right now, and I refuse to go fishing around on my snail-slow AOL hook-up to indulge you.

Look at it this way: Consciousness is pre-axiomatic to having any kind of discussion about any topic, etc.; it doesn't need to be defined further. It's an information-based phenomena, not a physical one. It's not amenable to understanding with scientific methods, hence the explanatory chasm.

[Oxymoron]

This would be the umpteenth time that I've provided exactly that- a definition of consciousness on various threads. It's too complicated to get into right now, and I refuse to go fishing around on my snail-slow AOL hook-up to indulge you.

Look at it this way: Consciousness is pre-axiomatic to having any kind of discussion about any topic, etc.; it doesn't need to be defined further.

First you say you define it; then that it can't be defined. No wonder I'm less than impressed.


It's an information-based phenomena, not a physical one.


I especially like this; meaningless bullshit meant to sound clever, despite the well-known branch of science "information theory" being several hundred years old.


It's not amenable to understanding with scientific methods, hence the explanatory chasm


But somehow OTIK manages to define it anyway: "Ah, consciouness, it's just a sprinkling of magic pixie dust which only I can see". Well maybe it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a worse than useless "definition".

Do keep trying though.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

First you say you define it; then that it can't be defined. No wonder I'm less than impressed.

I especially like this; meaningless bullshit meant to sound clever, despite the well-known branch of science "information theory" being several hundred years old.

But somehow OTIK manages to define it anyway: "Ah, consciouness, it's just a sprinkling of magic pixie dust which only I can see". Well maybe it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a worse than useless "definition".

Do keep trying though. I said it doesn't need to be defined further, not that it can't be. You no understandee eengleesh? My sentences have an exact meaning, my former definition was more mathematical than otherwise.

But all yo' himmin' and hawin' indicates that you are ignorant on the subject. falsifying data that wasn't even provided does not mean you have any clue about the truth on the subject yourself.

But I can understand your interest: If your definition of consciousness is just as vacuous, unsavory, and deluded as all your pseudo-science crap about perception, I could see how you'd be "information starved".

A pre-axiomatic and self-evident phenomenon, magical?
Mind, as information and computation, is in the world, yet not of it...

Now try again, oxymoron, to provide a positive and substantial definition yourself, then I might help you. What causes consciousness fundamentally? What is the experience of consciousness comprised of, what does it do as gestalt? How is it different from physical observables?

Just give us a clue, OM

[RBH]

Please calm yourselve, folks. You can disagree civilly. Thanks!

RBH
E/C Moderator

[Celine]

Anyone recall a book entitled "The Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind," from the 70's? Can't recall the author, though it caused a stir. He argued that we didn't have "consciousness" until relatively lately, and that it involved the 'connection' of our left and right hemispheres. I'm stretching to recall, too lazy to google or amazon, but I also seem to recollect that he argued "religion," and the 'voice of God," etc., were prominent before this 'connection' between the hemispheres.

[RidgeBe]

OIC-

Consciousness is not unitary. As I said, there are multiple states of consciousness—unconscious; subconscious; preconscious; and consciousness. The thresholds between them are not clear, and appear to change, constantly. Unconsciousness does not necessarily mean we are asleep. Awake we are aware of our surroundings and make hundreds of mental adjustments. Subconscious is mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness, but not immediately available to being conscious. Preconscious is mental activities just below the threshold immediately available to being conscious. Thus, consciousness is being aware of our mental activities.

You ask, “What causes consciousness fundamentally?� The answer is fairly straightforward: a change in the stimulus situation, like what you see on the screen you are now looking at (it can also be a purely internal stimulation.). In some ways it is no different from other “physical observables;� subjects can be given mental problems while, for example, being scanned with a fMRI, which shows particular and different cortical activities during problem presentation, problem solving and problem solution.

You also ask “What is the experience of consciousness comprised of…� Introspection—a reflective examination of one’s thoughts and feelings—used to be part of Psychology’s tool kit until it was pointed out that there was no way to objectify a person’s subjective reports. So Psychology is in the odd position of being able to identify, with increasing accuracy, when conscious activity is taking place, and the subject matter of that activity, without being able to define what the experience of consciousness is. Thus, you are now free to wax poetically about that experience without fear of definitional contradiction.

[premjan]

I suppose with an MRI it is possible to objectify a person's subjective reports. Possibly wherever an entity is capable of measuring its own state (i.e. has neural or other feedback mechanisms) and changes to the state on a real-time basis, we have the makings of consciousness. So robots are no less conscious than humans and possibly deserving of eventual rights.

[Oxymoron]

Now try again, oxymoron, to provide a positive and substantial definition yourself, then I might help you. , what How is it different from physical observables?


Oh DO pay attention 007.

Haven't I been suggesting that there is no definition for consciousness other than an ambiguous labelling of a variety of phenomena experiential and otherwise, and therefore should be abandoned as a scientific goal until either a definition is made or we suddenly realise that there was no need for it in the first place?


What causes consciousness fundamentally?


How can I say what causes it when I (or anybody) lack a suitably concrete definition of what 'it' is?


What is the experience of consciousness comprised of


(a) I've no idea, I still don't know what it is I'm trying to explain
(b) I smell an infinite regress

[premjan]

The Bicameral Mind was by Julian Jaynes.

[jonesg]

Until someone gives a definition of "consciouness", that's going to remain an unanswered question.



Explicit conceptual integrations is your answer.

Are microtubules in neurons a type of quantum computer?

http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~biophys/banff1997/abstracts/hameroff.html

[jonesg]

Anyone recall a book entitled "The Origin of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind," from the 70's? Can't recall the author, though it caused a stir. He argued that we didn't have "consciousness" until relatively lately, and that it involved the 'connection' of our left and right hemispheres. I'm stretching to recall, too lazy to google or amazon, but I also seem to recollect that he argued "religion," and the 'voice of God," etc., were prominent before this 'connection' between the hemispheres.

Formal logic is relatively new, but humans have pondered for millions of yrs. They just pondered the wrong things.

[Oxymoron]

Explicit conceptual integrations is your answer.

Ok, tell me more.


Are microtubules in neurons a type of quantum computer?


(1) Do they need to be? Or is it the case that everything we know about human behaviour can be understood in terms of "classical" models? (I'm looking for a robust counter-example here).

(2) All neurons, or just human neurons?

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

It seems most people are stuck in the stimulus/response definition of consciousness. Isn't awareness also capable of invention, causation, of choice, of looking at future possibilities? As opposed to just being an effect of memory and percepts, it is also optimally capable of directing/shaping both interior and exterior phenomena, hence human invention and creativity. Stimuli and memories and concepts are mere variables integrated and analyzed by the much more sophisticated reality called mind...

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

If we are going to be scientific, we must start with a stimulus to even study conscious activity (not to define consciousness), although that stimulus can be completely internal, triggering all types of conscious activity. Oxymoron correctly suggests that the scientific goal of defining the experience of consciousness should be abandoned until we can do so properly. Perhaps the definition is like Justice Blackmun’s search for one for pornography—I don’t know what the definition is, but I know what pornography is when I see it.

Since you brought it up, once again define consciousness, then define mind in a way that shows it is more sophisticated than consciousness.

[whichphilosophy]

As I've already stated, it has been demonstrated in experiments that we can act upon things which we are not "aware" of.

Give up on "consciousness". The fact that it is so hard - nay impossible - to define is a big clue that we are barking up the wrong tree, and certainly precludes us having any meaningful discussion about it. And letting it go is very liberating. Think instead of information flow, filtration and marshalling; adaptive models of the world and self and self's relationship with world; think of our brains as the union of very old instinctual systems with very new cognitive systems that can make sense of the world in a pattern-matching way (and that struggle to come to terms with behaviour dictated by the old systems because they are based on reaction, not inference). All human behaviour can be broadly understood in these terms; why add unnecessary meaningless terms?

That is obvious such as heartbeat breathing etc which are on automatic. At the same time there are things there are stimulus response actions which are instinctive, often based on past incidents which we are not always readily aware of.

There is the sensing of things not being quite right and acting upon them. In this case we can be concious something is not quite right but now quite know what it is.

So it would be feasible to have a level of conciousness which we cannot always see (ie Freud suggested sub concious).

It is also feasible given the above conciousness can be present before knowledge or sub concious fears for a better word.

Regards,

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

OTI-

If we are going to be scientific, we must start with a stimulus to even study conscious activity (not to define consciousness), although that stimulus can be completely internal, triggering all types of conscious activity. Oxymoron correctly suggests that the scientific goal of defining the experience of consciousness should be abandoned until we can do so properly. Wrong. The only consciouness that is even directly accessible is one's own. You basically need to become your own science fair project to make any headway at all, or haven't you even figured that much out yet? It's exhausting to do so, but yields some interesting things. Are you treating consciousness as some kind of unknown, alien phenomenon? Jeez. :confused: Perhaps the definition is like Justice Blackmun’s search for one for pornography—I don’t know what the definition is, but I know what pornography is when I see it. Yeah; when you finally become fully counscious, you'll definitely realize it.


Since you brought it up, once again define consciousness, then define mind in a way that shows it is more sophisticated than consciousness.
No. Go fish. Anyway, I was just using mind as synonym for consciousness.

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

If you say; “You basically need to become your own science fair project…� then you don’t understand science. Any scientific work must be verifiable externally by others. And yes, scientifically I do treat the experience of consciousness as currently unknown.

You say “…I was just using mind as synonym for consciousness.� But it was you who introduced the term “…more sophisticated…� Something cannot be both more sophisticated and a synonym.

Like many others, I have figured out that you should read yours and other’s posts more carefully before you wing a reply.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

OTI-

If you say; “You basically need to become your own science fair project…� then you don’t understand science. Any scientific work must be verifiable externally by others. And yes, scientifically I do treat the experience of consciousness as currently unknown."Know thy self"- the state of consciousness is implicit, pre-axiomatic to any discussion or scientific endeavor, among other things. It's very unlikely that scientific methods alone have the rigor or the reach to embrace the human experience. Most of the ideas hatched are tangential and off-beat, in my opinion. Many people consider that because consciousness is scientifically unaccessible, that it is an illusion. Perceptions are given a bad wrap, too.

You say “…I was just using mind as synonym for consciousness.� But it was you who introduced the term “…more sophisticated…� Something cannot be both more sophisticated and a synonym.

Like many others, I have figured out that you should read yours and other’s posts more carefully before you wing a reply. But there's a distinction to made here. Concepts, memory, perception, and affects are the short list of varibles intrinsic to consciousness, but it's actually awareness that "makes the calls", as the computer people say. It isn't the concept or knowledge of awareness that is experientially operative, but the process itself.

Awareness should not be confused with what an individual is aware of; I usually consider mind, or consciousness, to be the interior, experiential gestalt- awareness and all that informs awareness combined, and conversely, all that awareness informs.

Awareness is kind of a secondary "prime mover" in the causal mode, a peculiar paradox. Which means it's capable of imagining/originating new possibilities and initiating them.

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

Once again you demonstrate your conceptual ignorance of the scientific method. The scientific method says “Remove thyself.� All true scientific investigation should be as objective as possible. The scientific method has the rigor to investigate those aspects of the human experience that can be investigated objectively. Who is “Many people…?� Name one person, other than yourself, who says; “…because consciousness is scientifically unaccessible [the word is inaccessible], that it is an illusion.� As I said, scientifically, the experience of consciousness is currently unknown; I made no mention of it as an illusion. You continue to misuse words: it is “rap� not “wrap.�

Your last three paragraphs are vintage OTI babble, deserving no comment except for “Awareness is kind of a secondary ‘prime mover’ in the causal mode.� Awareness is a reaction, and something that is secondary cannot be primary.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Removing yourself is inappropiate, given the nature of what is being addressed. The methods themselves need to be extended for this inquiry.

"Consciousness: Illusion?" the last chapter of Daniel Dennett's "consciousness explained" [away].

secondary 'prime mover': As opposed to The prime mover, which refers to a deity. I'm refering to human creativity here- a quality Skinner got a lot of flak for ignoring in his work on behaviourism.

Awareness is the pivot point of reaction and action- people are much more than stimulus/response mechanisms.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Removing yourself form this particular science project is inappropiate, given the interiorized nature of what is being addressed. The methods themselves need to be extended for this inquiry get any where at all.

"Consciousness: Illusion?" the last chapter of Daniel Dennett's "consciousness explained" [away].

secondary 'prime mover': As opposed to The prime mover, which refers to a deity. I'm refering to human creativity here- a quality Skinner got a lot of flak for ignoring in his work on behaviourism.

Awareness is the pivot point of reaction and action- but people are much more than stimulus/response mechanisms.

[whichphilosophy]

How did conscious life come about?

Was it always there or was it manifested. Theism or Atheism take your pick.

[Oxymoron]

There is the sensing of things not being quite right and acting upon them.


Often indistinguishable from paranoia.


In this case we can be concious something is not quite right but now quite know what it is.


All quite understandable under a highly parallelised paradigm in which multiple agents compete for attention and only a few can be focused on at one time with an implicit (though to some extent malleable) prioritisation.


So it would be feasible to have a level of conciousness which we cannot always see (ie Freud suggested sub concious).


So our subconscious is part of our consciousness? :huh:

Can't you see the very notion falling to bits in your hands as you type?

[/QUOTE]

[premjan]

What is required for a computer program or robot to be termed "conscious" (bad word) or "intelligent"? The Turing test seems to refer to a preexisting ill-defined entity such as the human being.

[Oxymoron]

What is required for a computer program or robot to be termed "conscious" (bad word) or "intelligent"? The Turing test seems to refer to a preexisting ill-defined entity such as the human being.

"Intelligent" as in "intelligent like a human"? The robot would need to be a near-simulation of a human, with energy requirements, two arms, two legs, the ability to walk upright over arbitrary terrain... and so on. We are not just brains, we are infrastructures. Our brains and minds would not be as they are without the requirement to drive the rest of it. Eg our minds' self-map obviously has to cope with routing impulses from an extensive CNS. More critically, consider something like language. Human languages are designed for humans by humans. They are appropriate to the mechanisms and idiosyncrasies of the hardware they "run" on. It seems optimistic then to expect a computer to be able to learn them in the way that we do, and disingenuous for criticising the fact that they cannot do so. As a tiny example: vision is very important to humans; we often say things like "I see" to mean "I understand". A computer with no vision would never make this connection unless explicitly told to. (Most blind people have some limited vision; and they will pick up the expression by copying others' use of it in context even if completely sightless).

This touches on the prejudice issue. We are very used to inferring intelligence on things that look like we do, and less on things that differ in some respects. It is possible therefore that computers / robots with state-of-the-art software are already conscious and intelligent in a limited way that we are just not prepared to acknowledge. Would you say a robot that was as intelligent as a new-born baby would be a significant advance? Children learn fast and deep but it takes them many months of mistake-making to get there. They often learn by imitation. Robots can also learn gestures by imitation. But the crucial thing here is that we know how they work. We built 'em. Therefore we view them differently to systems which are black-boxes, and in the main people seem to endow these opaque units with magical mystical powers. Rather in the way that a card trick seems to be utterly baffling to the viewer but actually turns out to be a really straightforward - even obvious - device to those in the know.

Another big requirement is a LOT of fast associative memory capable of storing not only perceptions but also internal state (since we often snapshot emotion with events). It's safe to say the actual mechanism of memory in the brain is not well understood, but it's coming along. Vision remains a challenge: the best recognition software in the world (being written two offices down from me) is still feeble and slow. It's all very well being shown a picture of a cow side-on and then asked to identify it in an image. That's easy. What is tricky is to be shown a picture face-on and still being able to see it as a cow. But then humans take time to learn this (indeed it may have taken billions of years to perfect the mechanism); my 2yo daughter, despite many training example, still cannot correctly identify colours. IMO the solution to the imaging problem is to abandon pixel tests (which is how vision currently works in essence) and design software that can build internal models of scenes, complete with context, and make inferences (eg if I can see a field it's much more likely to be a cow than a fish).

So there's a little way to go yet; but I believe I can - in principle - write software that acts as an intelligent survival agent in a virtual world of some complexity. A robot is harder because the physical technology is really crude. Eg motors and pneumatics are really poor and qualitatively different compared to muscle. But that'll come too.

[premjan]

Funny how you would use a positive example of how your daughter can't do something (you must really love your job).

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

You say; “Removing yourself form [sic]this particular science project is inappropriate [sic], given the interiorized nature of what is being addressed.� This is a thread discussion about the origin of consciousness, not a science project, and consciousness has always been interior, it was not moved (interiorized) there.

The last chapter of Dennett’s book is “Consciousness Imagined.�

You also say; “Skinner got a lot of flak for ignoring [creativity] in his work on behaviourism [getting a bit British?].� Skinner did not work on behaviorism, he took a behavioristic approach to research in Psychology, concentrating primarily on instrumental conditioning.

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

You say; “Removing yourself form [sic]this particular science project is inappropiate [sic], given the interiorized nature of what is being addressed.� This is a thread discussion about the origin of consciousness, not a science project, and consciousness has always been interior, it was not moved (interiorized) there.

The last chapter of Dennett’s book is “Consciousness Imagined.�

You also say; “Skinner got a lot of flak for ignoring [creativity]in his work on behaviourism [getting a bit British?].� Skinner did not work on behaviorism, he took a behavioristic approach to psychological research, concentrating primarily on instrumental conditioning.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Was it always there or was it manifested. Theism or Atheism take your pick.good question :)

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

OTI-

You say; “Removing yourself form [sic]this particular science project is inappropriate [sic], given the interiorized nature of what is being addressed.� This is a thread discussion about the origin of consciousness, not a science project, and consciousness has always been interior, it was not moved (interiorized) there.

The last chapter of Dennett’s book is “Consciousness Imagined.�

You also say; “Skinner got a lot of flak for ignoring [creativity] in his work on behaviourism [getting a bit British?].� Skinner did not work on behaviorism, he took a behavioristic approach to research in Psychology, concentrating primarily on instrumental conditioning.This is one subject where forgetting yourself, as Skinner did, is a mistake. Poking around someone else's consciousness is just plain intrusive, and catastrophic in instances where it is unwanted.

As I said before, the scientific method needs to be extended when addressing the phenomenon called consciousness. In most cases, an observer also participates in the outcome; here, subject and scientist are the same, there is no intrusion, just what is.

But turning that which knows into knowledge is a slippery slope, awareness is a multifaceted event, each person prioritizes its attributes in a different way. Knowledge of awareness should be seen as filtered, as reification of the experience itself.

From what I understand, awareness is the one thing that is not reflected in any kind of mirror

[Oxymoron]

As I said before, the scientific method needs to be extended when addressing the phenomenon called consciousness.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolschiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt.

The scientific method is quite capable of dealing with something that has no intrinisic meaning or usefulness: it consigns it to the dustbin, where it belongs.

I will retract that if you can suitably define exactly what 'the phenomenon of consciousness' actually is. Otherwise let's keep the New Age nonsense to a minimum of - shall we say - zero.

[whichphilosophy]

Because simple reactive behaviors took too long to change via evolution. Initially neural feedback basically modulated behavior to inputs. Then some new neural connections grew that associated behavior with mental state instead of only inputs. At this point consciousness was (depending on your precise definition) born. The module that takes mental state and associates it with behavior could be called the consciousness module or ego or spectator or something like that.

In my view this is an excellent theory but I view it as back to front.
What made the new neural connections. It makes more sense that something caused these.

If there is no cause we could be talking about magic.

[whichphilosophy]

good question :)
:jump: Hence I say there is very little between Atheism (no belief or disbelief) or theism.

As a theist of sorts I have always respected both Atheist and Theist belief systems. (I bet some of the readers and posters liked this one) :wave:

[whichphilosophy]

What is required for a computer program or robot to be termed "conscious" (bad word) or "intelligent"? The Turing test seems to refer to a preexisting ill-defined entity such as the human being.

We have of course Learning computors that can learn as they go along. You would be more expert than most. I would say that the conciousness is the person who designed the computer for it is a reflection of just that.

I am sure in our lifetime there will be a humanlike robot walking around and can even fool most people it is a person.

Teaching it a sense of humour will be one of the most challenging parts.

Regards,

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

You say; “In most cases, an observer also participates in the outcome; here, subject and scientist are the same, there is no intrusion, just what is.� Do you really mean to say that the only allowable introspection is self-introspection by the investigating “scientist?� If so, you are more clueless about the scientific method than I ever could have imagined.

Your post has raised babble to new heights (or, perhaps, depths).

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolschiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt.

The scientific method is quite capable of dealing with something that has no intrinisic meaning or usefulness: it consigns it to the dustbin, where it belongs.

I will retract that if you can suitably define exactly what 'the phenomenon of consciousness' actually is. Otherwise let's keep the New Age nonsense to a minimum of - shall we say - zero.
There's a few definitions of consciousness here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=123046), mostly on the last few pages. The fact that you disregard their validity, does not mean they do not exist.

Do you people understand yourselves at all?

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

OTI-

You say; “In most cases, an observer also participates in the outcome; here, subject and scientist are the same, there is no intrusion, just what is.� Do you really mean to say that the only allowable introspection is self-introspection by the investigating “scientist?� If so, you are more clueless about the scientific method than I ever could have imagined.

Your post has raised babble to new heights (or, perhaps, depths).
No, what you're implying is that scientist are clueless, and dangerously so, about when introspection has relevence.

For starters, what are the physical attributes of "concept"?

Under the normal constraints which apply to scientific method, mind makes a very poor science project.

[RBH]

This is not a new issue. Experimental psychology went through this debate nigh unto a century ago, Oddy. You might familiarize yourself with that history and with the new methodologies of cognitive psychology and cognitive science before making assertions like that.

RBH

[premjan]

Given the opinion of people involved in developing AI programs such as Oxymoron, I would have to agree that the obsession with consciousness may just be a parochial affection for our own introspection which is a result of long enculturation (conscience, mindfulness, God etc. brainwashing). Our introspection is just another mental "summary" function. There is no qualia-tive side to consciousness; it is just an "emergent" information processing property. Computers of sufficient complexity will have a meaningful experience of consciousness and we will have to think hard about granting them rights were they to wish it.

I am a little surprised that children recognize color absent of context, but then color is independent of context, isn't it? How would a 3D model help a child (or computer) to recognize color? I noticed my child also used to have the same problem.

I agree that virtual graphics worlds would make the whole scene interpretation thing easier. However, for that to become commonplace, 3D graphics has to become commonplace, as it is gradually becoming, at a commercial level in the form of movies.

[Oxymoron]

I am a little surprised that children recognize color absent of context, but then color is independent of context, isn't it?


Actually it isn't! http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/colourPerception/colourPerception.html

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

This is not a new issue. Experimental psychology went through this debate nigh unto a century ago, Oddy. You might familiarize yourself with that history and with the new methodologies of cognitive psychology and cognitive science before making assertions like that.
RBHThe debate about how our understanding of mind is too primitive to go delving into it, that our various "methods" are much like a bull in a china shop when dealing with the workings of the mind?

I've already discussed Oxymoron's opinion about perception on the last few pages of this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=120530&page=18&pp=25).
Oxymoron's is just one example of what modern methods have come up with- that perception has no veracity, that our senses are somehow unreal. Which is total science crap, if you think about it. It makes me wonder if the whole business of cognitive science is a complete fraud.

[Oxymoron]

It makes me wonder if the whole business of cognitive science is a complete fraud.

Yes, the entire world is completely insane, conspiratorial and wrong, all except OTIK. All bow to your master! Grovel to the Emperor! :notworthy




(Oh Emperor, I don't know if you've noticed, but you are, shall we say, without attire?)

(And Emperor: if I may be so humble, I do believe there was a matter of a Formal Debate on the matter which you point-blank refused to entertain at least a dozen times on that thread whilst simultaneously espousing the biggest pile of New Age pseudo-scientific bullplop this side of Glastonbury.)

[Oxymoron]

Do you people understand yourselves at all?

The very fact that you do not understand others self-understanding might actually be an indicator that your own "understanding" is, in fact, horse-shit.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Then try providing some sort of definitions yourselves, then explain how awareness, or mind, originated. Was it just same old, same old, or something else?

The reason Oxymoron thinks he can insult people for no good reason stems from his very idea of perception. Since everthing is unreal, everyone else is also, so invaliding others is okay. Life is just a wishy-washy head game for people like him, with no pre-axiomatic statements whatsoever.

Nor does he make any distinction between attacking some one relating a personal experience, and that of making serious accusations against a scientific field, which isn't personal at all, but should actually thrive on new information and differences of opinion.

Pathetic

[premjan]

I guess some context is used for recognizing color. Probably accounts for shadows, colored light and stuff like that.

[whichphilosophy]

How can you be precise about "I think therefore I am"?

Or I am thus I think

[RidgeBe]

OTI-

No, it is you who is pathetic. Do you realize that every time you post, you make yourself look ridiculous? Consider “Since everthing [sic] is unreal, everyone else is also, so invaliding [sic] others is okay.�

It appears that your sole source of information is in the public press written by popular writers who have, at best, a tenuous grasp of the information about which they are writing.

You appear never to have had an English class, or if you had, to have ignored everything the instructor attempted to teach you. The last sentence/paragraph of your last post could be used by an English instructor as a classic example of how not to write.

OTI, do yourself a favor. Stop posting, but instead spend the same time curling up with good books on the topics on which you have commented. From time to time you have shown flashes of intelligence. Use that: it will do you well.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Is there a difference between consciousness and self-awareness? The only book I've read on the matter (Dennett is still on the shelves :(;)) -- Nicholas Humphrey's The Inner Eye -- argued that we have self-awareness / consciousness because we are such a massively competitive-social species. It is advantageous to be able to guess what another individual is going to do; one can do this by being able to put oneself in their position and imagine what I would do; and in order to tell what I would do, one needs a concept of self. A ‘theory of mind’, I think it gets called nowadays (Humphrey didn’t mention the term iirc). By being able to look inward, so to speak -- Humphrey’s ‘inner eye’ -- we can better predict others’ actions. Humans are natural born mind-readers.

Humphrey also argued that we are so good at this that we read consciousness into other creatures, whether they have it or not. A dog may look unhappy, but that’s just the signals it sends out to other pack members; it doesn’t need to feel unhappy for the signals to have the appropriate effect. The vast majority of animals are in fact ‘soft machines’, no more self-aware than a mechanical toy. The exceptions would likely be our nearest cousins, and perhaps some cetaceans -- critters that can pass the mirror test of recognising their reflection as not being another individual.

I don’t recall him discussing how this mechanism evolved, but then I read it back in 1988-ish... I can make an evolutionary prediction, though: we could look for rudimentary consciousness in other primates.One dog that I had as a pet when I was teenager reacted to its reflection in a display mirror in a store once. She barked at her own reflection for maybe half minute, then lost interest once she figured out what it was. This happened only once- she never again gave her own reflection much notice after that.

Some one in the lounge posted an experience with a pet: A cat on top of the bed that would use a mirror to stalk another critter under the bed, while itself remaining out of sight. This to me seems like a more sophisticated knowledge of what a mirror does than the "test for self-awareness" as practiced. I doubt if it pays much attention to its own reflection either- cats know what's up.

[Sven]

One dog that I had as a pet when I was teenager reacted to its reflection in a display mirror in a store once. She barked at her own reflection for maybe half minute, then lost interest once she figured out what it was. This happened only once- she never again gave her own reflection much notice after that.
This adds to my suspicion that intelligence and along with it, self-awareness varies greatly enough in cats, dogs, etc. that you get members of the species which "get it", and members which don't. Maybe this whole fuss about self-awareness isn't necessarily a characteristic of an entire species, but rather of individuals.

Some one in the lounge posted an experience with a pet: A cat on top of the bed that would use a mirror to stalk another critter under the bed, while itself remaining out of sight.
Umm, OtIK, there is a "small" problem here: Light travels in both directions. If the cat can see the critter in the mirror, the critter can also see the cat in the mirror. It's impossible to "remain out of sight" using a mirror.

This to me seems like a more sophisticated knowledge of what a mirror does than the "test for self-awareness" as practiced.
Since the scenario above simply does not work, I'm highly suspicious of this anecdote.

[premjan]

The size of the reflection you see depends on how close you are to the mirror, hence rear view mirrors.

[Sven]

The size of the reflection you see depends on how close you are to the mirror, hence rear view mirrors.
:huh: Your point?

[premjan]

So it is possible for a cat to sneak up on another cat using rear view mirrors (reference earlier in the thread).

[Sven]

So it is possible for a cat to sneak up on another cat using rear view mirrors (reference earlier in the thread).
I still don't understand your logic. Both cats would see each other in this mirror - only smaller than normal.

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

This adds to my suspicion that intelligence and along with it, self-awareness varies greatly enough in cats, dogs, etc. that you get members of the species which "get it", and members which don't. Maybe this whole fuss about self-awareness isn't necessarily a characteristic of an entire species, but rather of individuals.


Umm, OtIK, there is a "small" problem here: Light travels in both directions. If the cat can see the critter in the mirror, the critter can also see the cat in the mirror. It's impossible to "remain out of sight" using a mirror.


Since the scenario above simply does not work, I'm highly suspicious of this anecdote.
I agree. In fact, I find the "mirror test for self-awareness" highly dubious.

[badger3k]

This adds to my suspicion that intelligence and along with it, self-awareness varies greatly enough in cats, dogs, etc. that you get members of the species which "get it", and members which don't. Maybe this whole fuss about self-awareness isn't necessarily a characteristic of an entire species, but rather of individuals.

Don't forget that what we could be observing in this instance has nothing to do with awareness. Since the reflection provides no smell, and makes no sound, the dog could have simply reacted to that - the dog might have "realized" that the reflection was not an actual dog and therefore no threat(or whatever). The dog could also have reacted to the fact that there was no escalation of the behavior on the part of the "other" dog. Since there was no additional reaction the dog could have lost interest. It's real easy to anthropomorphize and project our own responses and thoughts into the animals. Just putting this in to show the problems with such assumptions.

That said, I do have to say that my own opinion is that dogs (and animals in general) are a lot more "intelligent" (or conscious, if you want, to keep it on topic) than a lot of people think (but probably less than a lot of others think). Given the recent findings in language among birds and mammals, as well as the recent finding that chickens have some kind of time-sense and self-restraint...I think the issue of consciousness is one in flux. I think there will be a lot of work done on it in the near future (assuming that some people don't succeed in dumbing down our educational institutions with pseudoscience).

[badger3k]

I agree. In fact, I find the "mirror test for self-awareness" highly dubious.

I agree with this as well -but what else do we have that is testable?

[doubtingt]

There seem be 3 different questions within this issue.

1. What are the physical neural components and/or their particular configuration that allow for consciousness?

2. How exactly do these components and/or their configuration give rise to consciousness?

3. What sequence of evolutionary pressures and events gave rise to these components?

While clearly all related, only the second question cannot be approached at all prior to answering any of the others (#1 in particular).

Question 3 can be speculated about and a host of plausible candidates can be put forth (some of which should include the possibility that consciousness was an unselected by-product of other more critical mental faculties). However, until question #1 is answered, this pursuit will be quite limited, because only knowing the particular mechanisms involved will constrain the numerous possibilities.

My guess is that via inter-species comparisions of the brain structures and their covariance with consciousness indicating behaviors, question #1 has the best chance of significant progress in the near future.

[premjan]

I still don't understand your logic. Both cats would see each other in this mirror - only smaller than normal.
If one saw the other small, and the other saw the first big, possibly only the second cat would be alert to the information. For instance, if you are driving behind another car, the person in front can see features of your face, but you can't see much of the features of his or her face.

[Will I Am]

Premjan said in reply to the OP:


Because simple reactive behaviors took too long to change via evolution.

Hm.

So, humans became “concious�.

And "we" then could “conciously� invent farms, herds, slavery, mega-cities, and etc?

Only 14 million years after completely “unconscious� ants had done the very same things?

[premjan]

Ants don't dominate the world you know...

[Oxymoron]

Ants don't dominate the world you know...

Oh really? There are more ants killed daily in rainforests than humans alive today. No-one knows for sure how many there are, or even how many species. And that's before we count the termites.

[premjan]

But they can't defend themselves against humans.

[Oxymoron]

But they can't defend themselves against humans.

You can't defend yourself against a lion. So what?

Every human attempt to eradicate insects (such as the mosquito) have failed miserably. Can't defend themselves? Don't even need to.

[premjan]

We can defend ourselves against a lion, with the right weapons. And mosquitoes don't have any cultural attributes similar to humans, only some social insects like ants / bees / termites do.

BTW we should consider the flexibility of ant societies. Is it anywhere near as parametrizable as ours?

[Oxymoron]

We can defend ourselves against a lion, with the right weapons.

Funny though, people still get killed by lions and tigers year in, year out.

And mosquitoes don't have any cultural attributes similar to humans, only some social insects like ants / bees / termites do.

And your point is...?

Evolutionary success is indicated by length of time a species has been around and the population size (as well as robustness in the light of external events). Insects trounce us on all these fronts. Indeed, were we to try to eradicate in