49 replies to this topic

[addx]

Your reasoning and language are incoherent. You say consciousness is not awareness and then go on to say that consciousness is awareness.

For people who's insight is on the level of a lump of wood the subtlety of language required to explain the difference is not recognisable obviously.


Why don't you type consciousness vs. awareness into google before replying and find the same "incoherent language".

You might be able to read this:


http://www.lookwithi...s-real-essence/

Or simply google consciousness vs. awareness.


Or try and read this incoherent language

http://www.thenewyog...g/use&abuse.htm


 

Your dog example is patently absurd and is just another manifestation of human chauvinism.

How so?

Can you teach a dog to understand shame or humour? Is it possible? Can you teach any animal except apes?

Your response is also an utterly narcissistic defence from shame of inability to understand being projected towards me, shaming me for being incoherent. Read the second link, it applies to you. You reacted more to the chance to be wrong than the chance to attain and understand new knowledge. It's a typical self-defeat by pride.



What's so hard to understand. The system of consciousness acts "in the moment". The system of awareness oversees the system of consciousness. The ability of awareness allows you to dwell in a moment that has passed and this allows introspection and "self-awareness".

"Self-consciousness" only allows you to understand that you can use your body-self as a tool. It does not allow you to provide meaning(subjective meaning) to the tool use. This is a function of awareness, only in humans and apes. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Edited by addx, 22 April 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[Duchykins]

Oh yes, I'm not sure, most of you here read a multitude of books on the topic. I only read some summaries and quotes etc.

There is a fundamental difference between my line of thought and everyone elses(that I've seen). Everyone else seems to try and understand the brain from the point of view of its "user" - the self - the individual that carries it. I'm trying to understand it from the point of view of its "creator" - evolution. The view from the "user" is simply a wrong approach and it leads to overcomplex inapplicable knowledge. The initial standpoint is that the brain and the body is just "behavior" of the zygote keeps true perspective. The brain evolves because the zygote that grows a better brain gets to have more sex later.

The entire "evolutionary" line of thought(if evolution was a person) is based on weighing insvestment against immediate success.

Thus cell division used for growing bodies instead of bacteria colonies and evolution of sexual reproduction is an investement against immediate success.

The zygote instead of dividing asexually into 2 zyogtes uses the ability to grow a body. The sexual reproduction ability is used to reproduce but at a cost - an instance of the same life form must be found and willing to reproduce. So, that's 2 fold cost for eukaryotic life. The return on the investment is the "gene pool" (providing a return in "gene pool cleanlyness ensured by sexual selection" which then provides a slow forward evolution speed) and "the body"(allowing the cell to create a big body that can use or access new types of resources).

The body itself is always an investment. A huge expensive body is not that worthwhile to a species, depending on conditions.

Evolution continued to evolve "preemptive investement" mechanisms for bigger later payoff - the last of which is the awareness.

Each "status marker" later evolves its "reactive mechanism" which reacts when the derivation of state change spikes.

The first of such is the social hierarchy and territorialness.

Initially it is only instictual in the moment - who beats who gets to reproduce.

So top level investement is placed in senses, muscles, protection and reflexes - instinctual war machines.

But eventually higher order mechanism develops that keeps track of success as explained, social fights are kept track of and result in "social status" which branches out to female and/or territory posession, depending on the species.

The sense of social status is now the top level "investment" of the species resulting in females and/or territory.

This means the species can sacrifice the lower level investment for the higher level if it weighs it so. This means they can fight "for nothing"(apparent) but simply for social status. Such fights are obvious investements and the brain would not evolve to allow such reckless behavior if it didn't have a payoff.


As the bodies reproductive and life cycle are "invested" into the gene pool more bodies die due to intraspecies competition(ensured by among other more obvious things - aging), but the gene pool itself evolves steadily thanks to each body sacrificed or each refused spread of genes.

Mammals then evolve a game changer - consciousness. It allows for rapid adaptation of subconscious behavior. This allows mammals to use a body in multiple adaptive ways before discarding it or allowing it to procreate. The gene pool is still invested into, but there is something else now - the group - the meta-carrier of the "knowledge pool".

Consciousness reacts to subconscious error in state prediction. Again it responds to the derivation of state to induce an "investement response(consciousness) that endures momentary frustration(think of the rat reward dowhshift 8% sucrose moment) in order to detect a difference in context that will serve future endaveours. This investment does not pay off so much on itself, but since mammals evolved vicarious learning at the same time - this investment spreads easily and gives a huge pay off for the group whose member invested it. Aggregation of experience forms a new meta-entity of evolution "knowledge pool".

And finally awareness evolves, I've been bored I guess. But time for boredom is gone now, I think I've explained how awareness functions as reactive to state change and how it provides an investment into the future. No need to go into that further now.

So, point being others do not seem to pick this evolutionary "way of things". I have a hard time imagining how anyone is going to "explain the brain" without it.

Your understanding of evolution is mediocre and full of popular stereotypes and misconceptions. First of all, you seem to think that the bulk of sexual selection among sexual species is intrasexual selection, when it is actually intersexual selection. Intersexual selection is generally more widespread and successful simply because the female must invest more in reproducing, the cost is higher for her, she cannot reproduce as often as a male, and she therefore is inclined to be significantly more critical of potential mates than males are of females. Even in species that are traditionally viewed intrasexual, such as lions, horses, canines, some primates, it's not really as simple as the best males gets control of the females. There are top females in each group and they only allow breeding males to stick around if they are tolerable, as they are fully capable of driving off unwanted males. Our understanding of heirarchies, interactions and competition among social species has been colored by the first men to document their behaviors, who had a tendency to view females as passive receptacles in reproduction, as they were inclined to since that was the general idea of women in the cultures they grew up in. However, we have learned a great deal more since then, and are of course still learning about the subtle complexities of different groups of social species.

Secondly, it is very erroneous of you to illustrate evolution or evolutionary mechanisms with any kind of heirarchy of universally superior traits, something that approaches the old 'ladder of life' concept first documented in ancient Greek evolutionary thought.

Third, birds are not mammals. Cephalopods are also not mammals. Evolution is a cunning devil and can devise more than one way to make a smart animal.


If you're looking for a naturalistic explanation of the human brain, you're doing it wrong, some right, some wrong. The development of our intelligence hinged on more than a few seemingly unspectacular things about us, such:

1) we're predators, and apex predators to boot
2) we're social animals
3) we're bipedal
4) we have opposable thumbs
5) we have interesting vocal cords and mouths
6) vision is our primary sense
7) our offspring are few, utterly helpless, and take more than decade to mature. They require a great deal of investment, this prompts selection of good teachers and the passing on of knowledge (culture), also encourages cooperation, order, altruism, and other things intrinisic among social species

Some of these things evolved in tandem with our intelligence rather than being something that ALLOWED or even encouraged intelligence to develop and be selected. HOWEVER - it is a mistake to believe that intelligence is universally advantageous and selected, to believe that the smartest will out-breed the competition. In the bigger picture, evolution doesn't seem terribly concerned or impressed with higher intellect, that is something we simply like to believe about ourselves. Most females would tend to place above-average intellect fairly low on the list of desired attributes, certainly below everything related to general health: disease, malformation, injury, age, strength, stamina and physical attractiveness which would include things like agreeable scent, skin, feather or coat condition, cleanliness (all of which actually go back to indicators of good health), and a few behavioral things like attentiveness, assertiveness, confidence. Of course, intellect can play a role in most of those traits with things as simple as successfully feeding oneself and avoiding predation, so in that manner intelligence can be indirectly selected. It really depends on the environment.

As you can see, I don't wholly disagree with you. It does seem though, that you think humans are the only species with culture ...? If so then I disagree.

None of this is, of course, an actual descrption of consciousness, which is a concept we don't even agree on.

Edited by Duchykins, 22 April 2014 - 10:45 PM.

[Duchykins]

Your reasoning and language are incoherent. You say consciousness is not awareness and then go on to say that consciousness is awareness.

For people who's insight is on the level of a lump of wood the subtlety of language required to explain the difference is not recognisable obviously.


Why don't you type consciousness vs. awareness into google before replying and find the same "incoherent language".

You might be able to read this:


http://www.lookwithi...s-real-essence/

Or simply google consciousness vs. awareness.


Or try and read this incoherent language

http://www.thenewyog...g/use&abuse.htm


 

Your dog example is patently absurd and is just another manifestation of human chauvinism.

How so?

Can you teach a dog to understand shame or humour? Is it possible? Can you teach any animal except apes?

Your response is also an utterly narcissistic defence from shame of inability to understand being projected towards me, shaming me for being incoherent. Read the second link, it applies to you. You reacted more to the chance to be wrong than the chance to attain and understand new knowledge. It's a typical self-defeat by pride.



What's so hard to understand. The system of consciousness acts "in the moment". The system of awareness oversees the system of consciousness. The ability of awareness allows you to dwell in a moment that has passed and this allows introspection and "self-awareness".

"Self-consciousness" only allows you to understand that you can use your body-self as a tool. It does not allow you to provide meaning(subjective meaning) to the tool use. This is a function of awareness, only in humans and apes. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Are you actually going to me make me point out some of your more humorous grammar errors? But you're basically calling me stupid? You pompous retard, lmao.

Twice you've said that canines cannot experience shame. I've seen evidence to the contrary. At least once now you've implied that only primates can experience humor. I've seen evidence to the contrary. You've at least twice said that only primates are capable of self-awareness. I've seen evidence to the contrary. I see no reason to take your word on matters of intellect in nonhuman species. I see no reason to accept your definition of consciousness as something that isn't a "synonim" [sic] of self-awareness, all you've done is say "NO, you're wrong, this is the definition". You haven't explained why the definition of concscious is as you say.

Your just-so-because-I-say-so arguments are peurile and overly aggressive, indicative of your lack of education of the subject matter.

Oh, and you told me to google "consciousness vs awareness" and I did because you are actually wrong about the kind of person I am.

The first search result was Wikipedia's article on consciousness, the first line stating: "Consciousness is the quality or state of self-awareness, or, being aware of an external object or something within oneself."

That sentence is followed by two references, the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

That definition of consciousness is compatible with my original musings about consciousness & self-awareness, which makes sense because my philosophy books on theories of knowledge and existence use consciousness and self-awareness interchangeably and in the same contexts.

Edited by Duchykins, 22 April 2014 - 11:14 PM.

[addx]

http://en.wikipedia....l_consciousness

Sentience: the ability to be aware (feel, perceive, or be conscious) of one's surroundings or to have subjective experiences. Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

This seems to match my definition of consciousness
 

Sapience: often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties.

This seems to match my definition of awareness
 

The American biologist Gerald Edelman distinguishes between primary and secondary consciousness:
Primary consciousness: is the ability, found in humans and some animals, to integrate observed events with memory to create an awareness of the present and immediate past of the world around them. This form of consciousness is also sometimes called "sensory consciousness". Put another way, primary consciousness is the presence of various subjective sensory contents of consciousness such as sensations, perceptions, and mental images. For example, primary consciousness includes a person's experience of the blueness of the ocean, a bird's song, and the feeling of pain. Thus, primary consciousness refers to being mentally aware of things in the world in the present without any sense of past and future; it is composed of mental images bound to a time around the measurable present.[108]

This again seems to match my definition of consciousness
 

Secondary consciousness: is an individual's accessibility to their history and plans. The concept is also loosely and commonly associated with having awareness of one's own consciousness. The ability allows its possessors to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness. The term was also coined by Gerald Edelman.[47]

This matches my definition of awareness. Notice the bolded part.

 

Sentience (being aware of one's surroundings) is not the same as self-awareness (being aware of oneself as an individual). The mirror test is sometimes considered to be an operational test for self-awareness, and the handful of animals that have passed the mirror test are often considered to be self-aware.[35][36] It remains debatable whether recognition of one's mirror image can be properly construed to imply full self-awareness,[37] particularly given that robots are being constructed which appear to pass the test.[38][39]

This might explain your confusion of animal being self-aware.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
 

Popular ideas about consciousness suggest the phenomenon describes a condition of being aware of one's awareness or, self-awareness. Efforts to describe consciousness in neurological terms have focused on describing networks in the brain that develop awareness of the qualia developed by other networks.[1]

Note again the bolded part.




The ability of mammals to rapidly adapt and learn vicariously and transfer knowledge is clearly an entire new system that evolved on top of the reptilian brain. There border between mammals and reptiles is clearly evident in this sense. So it is an entire new mechanism also including REM sleep, and ability to be tamed and learn tricks.

If this is so, why do you categorically reject the notion that another system evolved after that and differentiates humans/apes from other mammals.

The system seems to be corellated to vmPFC function and its evolutionary function is explained by my text and can be seen in this study.

http://www.jneurosci...29/24/7631.full
 

This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

A recent study (Moretti et al., 2009) tests the role of temporal aspects of incentives in accepting unfair offers by offering concrete, immediate or abstract, future rewards in the ultimatum game. They find that VMPFC patients reject unfair offers more often only when rewards are abstract and delayed and not when immediate and concrete rewards (dollar bills) are presented. This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

The text is a long analysis of behavior with vmPFC damage and is quite supportive of my claims I do believe.

And yes, I do "preach", it seems to be a way to involve/invest myself, it's just a form of expression though. I have no interest in grammar competition though.

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[addx]

Here is Damasio, obviously often mentioned and also in this thread as the most prominent scientist in this exact field - consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia....f_consciousness
 

Core consciousness[edit]

Sufficiently more evolved is the second layer of Damasios theory, Core Consciousness. This emergent process occurs when an organism becomes consciously aware of feelings associated with changes occurring to its internal bodily state; it is able to recognize that his thoughts are his own, and that they are formulated in his own perspective.[2] It develops a momentary sense of self, as the brain continuously builds representative images, based on communications received from the Protoself.[2] This level of consciousness is not exclusive to human beings and remains consistent and stable throughout the lifetime of the organism[4] The image is a result of mental patterns which are caused by an interaction with internal or external stimulus. A relationship is established, between the organism and the object it is observing as the brain continuously creates images to represent the organisms experience of qualia.

Damasios definition of emotion is that of an unconscious reaction to any internal or external stimulus which activates neural patterns in the brain.[2] Feeling emerges as a still unconscious state which simply senses the changes affecting the Protoself due to the emotional state. These patterns develop into mental images, which then float into the organisms awareness. Put simply, consciousness is the feeling of knowing a feeling. When the organism becomes aware of the feeling that its bodily state (Protoself) is being affected by its experiences, or response to emotion, Core Consciousness is born. The brain continues to present nonverbal narrative sequence of images in the mind of the organism, based on its relationship to objects. An object in this context can be anything from a person, to a melody, to a neural image. Core consciousness is concerned only with the present moment, here and now. It does not require language or memory, nor can it reflect on past experiences or project itself into the future.

"Core consciousness" again corresponds to my consciousness
 

Extended consciousness[edit]

When consciousness moves beyond the here and now, Damasios third and final layer emerges as Extended Consciousness. This level could not exist without its predecessors, and, unlike them, requires a vast use of conventional memory. Therefore, an injury to a persons memory center can cause damage to their extended consciousness, without hurting the other layers. The autobiographical self draws on memory of past experiences which involves use of higher thought.[5] This autobiographical layer of self is developed gradually over time. Working memory is necessary for an extensive display of items to be recalled and referenced. Linguistic areas of the brain are activated to enhance the organism's experience, however, language is not necessarily required.

At this level of evolution, it is nearly impossible to separate language from the mental narrative. In previous stages of consciousness this was possible. Here, consciousness has evolved to the point where it can not only comprehend the meaning of experience, but he can also attach significance to it. Extended Consciousness performs the same function at this stage of evolution as Core Consciousness does on a more simplified level. It puts mental thoughts and stimulus into a personal perspective, places an ownership over said thoughts, and gives the organism a sense that he can act upon them.[5]

"Extended consciousness" corresponds to my awareness.



As you can see, everyone has difficulty explaining it.

Damasios "significance" is in fact a "projected return on investement in the future weighed against endulging in in immediate reality" and nicely correlates with my "awareness" and my explanation of it and it also nicely correlates with the vmPFC study. Investement in the future is in fact a prediction of social status acquired after investment - so it feeds back to the root social status(state) mechanism evolved in reptiles.

So I beleive I more than substantiated my claims for neurotangibility of these systems(vmPFC - awareness), evolutionary function of them, discerning qualities between them and the comments on animals as well. I'm sure I substantiated it way more than "I've seen dogs in shame and birds telling jokes". And I substantiated it with other peoples quotes so it must be at least somewhat coherent?


So, it seems discerning consciousness from awareness is quite important if you want to understand any of it.

The two distinct "experiences of existence" are obvious in any good contemplation of existence. Why do they crop up so easily yet are denied their distinction and are thrown around in vauge terms? Consciousness, self-consciousness, awareness, self-awareness, sapience, sentience whatever.

The terms of consciousness vs. awareness is typical of mindfullness practices and texts that relate to them, I did not coin them, I just adopted them from texts that are obviously aware of the distinction - as the one I gave the URL to. I could not really adopt any terms from Damasio or any other concrete theory as I would be leaning on the theory. These concepts are in fact as old as buddhism and I do not wish to lean onto or credit any theory for merely recognizing what has been recognized for millenia.

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Duchykins]

http://en.wikipedia....l_consciousness

Sentience: the ability to be aware (feel, perceive, or be conscious) of one's surroundings or to have subjective experiences. Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

This seems to match my definition of consciousness
 

Sapience: often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties.

This seems to match my definition of awareness
 

The American biologist Gerald Edelman distinguishes between primary and secondary consciousness:
Primary consciousness: is the ability, found in humans and some animals, to integrate observed events with memory to create an awareness of the present and immediate past of the world around them. This form of consciousness is also sometimes called "sensory consciousness". Put another way, primary consciousness is the presence of various subjective sensory contents of consciousness such as sensations, perceptions, and mental images. For example, primary consciousness includes a person's experience of the blueness of the ocean, a bird's song, and the feeling of pain. Thus, primary consciousness refers to being mentally aware of things in the world in the present without any sense of past and future; it is composed of mental images bound to a time around the measurable present.[108]

This again seems to match my definition of consciousness
 

Secondary consciousness: is an individual's accessibility to their history and plans. The concept is also loosely and commonly associated with having awareness of one's own consciousness. The ability allows its possessors to go beyond the limits of the remembered present of primary consciousness. The term was also coined by Gerald Edelman.[47]

This matches my definition of awareness. Notice the bolded part.

 

Sentience (being aware of one's surroundings) is not the same as self-awareness (being aware of oneself as an individual). The mirror test is sometimes considered to be an operational test for self-awareness, and the handful of animals that have passed the mirror test are often considered to be self-aware.[35][36] It remains debatable whether recognition of one's mirror image can be properly construed to imply full self-awareness,[37] particularly given that robots are being constructed which appear to pass the test.[38][39]

This might explain your confusion of animal being self-aware.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
 

Popular ideas about consciousness suggest the phenomenon describes a condition of being aware of one's awareness or, self-awareness. Efforts to describe consciousness in neurological terms have focused on describing networks in the brain that develop awareness of the qualia developed by other networks.[1]

Note again the bolded part.




The ability of mammals to rapidly adapt and learn vicariously and transfer knowledge is clearly an entire new system that evolved on top of the reptilian brain. There border between mammals and reptiles is clearly evident in this sense. So it is an entire new mechanism also including REM sleep, and ability to be tamed and learn tricks.

If this is so, why do you categorically reject the notion that another system evolved after that and differentiates humans/apes from other mammals.

The system seems to be corellated to vmPFC function and its evolutionary function is explained by my text and can be seen in this study.

http://www.jneurosci...29/24/7631.full
 

This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

A recent study (Moretti et al., 2009) tests the role of temporal aspects of incentives in accepting unfair offers by offering concrete, immediate or abstract, future rewards in the ultimatum game. They find that VMPFC patients reject unfair offers more often only when rewards are abstract and delayed and not when immediate and concrete rewards (dollar bills) are presented. This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

The text is a long analysis of behavior with vmPFC damage and is quite supportive of my claims I do believe.

And yes, I do "preach", it seems to be a way to involve/invest myself, it's just a form of expression though. I have no interest in grammar competition though.

You're overdoing it here. First, I never really challenged your ideas of the definition of consciousness, I was defending my own from your attacks. I don't really disagree with your definition of consciousness since the general idea is correct, there are often multiple definitions for a single word, and the concepts of consciousness and self-awareness are incredibly vague to begin with. I simply see no reason to go with your preference as "THE" definition of consciousness.

Second, I never spoke of personal anecdotes about wolves, birds, dolphins, the evidence I've seen consists of dozens of studies on these species and others over the past ten years since evolutionary biology is a little hobby of mine. Shame is an integral part of wolf social structure. We've known dolphins to have a sense of humor for some time already. No I'm not going to bother to spend a few hours looking for all kinds of studies since you are a dead-set ignorant megalomaniac and will dismiss them out of hand.

I made no categorical rejection of the evolution of any kind of trait that separates primates from nonprimates. I said that nature can find more than one way to make a smart animal. My opinion has evolution's options wide open; yours limits them.   Apparently you either have reading comprehension problems or are skimming my posts too hastily to find something to disagree with.

You kept making vague references to the popularized triune brain, which seems to be in character for you. That idea is largely romanticized by laypeople, but the truth is that the idea of the triune brain is itself a little oversimplified and restrictive, it can still be useful but newer discoveries about some fish, birds, dinosaurs conflict with the old reptile-brain, mammalian-brain ideas. If you continue to adhere to those ideas then you are more inclined to erroneously dimiss evidence of intelligence in nonprimate species.

I have no confusion about some animals being self-aware. I believe some are. I'm not denying that this isn't debatable because it is very debatable. You pointing to the existence of the debate in the scientific community and interpreting it as "you're ignorant and wrong, animals are not self-aware" is the same attitude creationists have with scientific debates how to classify an animal, they say "see, evolution is wrong, that is species is fully ape" (for example)

There is similar debate over the definition of consciousness or self-awareness in both the scientific and philosophical communities. Your attitude is unacceptable and unprofessional. You flat out said they were not synonymous and then patronized me to look it up, which I did and lo-and-behold I didn't have to go far before I found a definition making them synonymous. If you had a shred of decency you would have recognized that and apologized to me. But you don't, so you didn't.

Your concept of evolution is still flawed, and you rest your arguments upon that flawed understanding. You have not bothered to correct your premises. Go ahead and bulldoze onward if you like.

But peruse these first for your own sake, just to get an idea of the bigger picture here:

http://plato.stanfor.../consciousness/
http://plato.stanfor...ousness-animal/
http://www.scientifi...classic-mirror/

Then take a gander at the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, then come back and tell me *I'm* confused. If I am confused, then I believe myself in good company.

Edited by Duchykins, 23 April 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[addx]

You're overdoing it here. First, I never really challenged your ideas of the definition of consciousness, I was defending my own from your attacks.

And I was "defending back".
 

I don't really disagree with your definition of consciousness since the general idea is correct, there are often multiple definitions for a single word, and the concepts of consciousness and self-awareness are incredibly vague to begin with. I simply see no reason to go with your preference as "THE" definition of consciousness.

I beleive I argumented the reasons for changing your mind above. This is a discussion so.. we're discussing it and providing arguments.

I also beleive I did not offend you even though I came on all pompous. While you did offend me.

Note the difference. I challenged your post, fair and square. You used my post to make indirect statements about me. Nothing in your first reply to me is in fact on topic.

I am sorry I came on that pompous.
 

Second, I never spoke of personal anecdotes about wolves, birds, dolphins, the evidence I've seen consists of dozens of studies on these species and others over the past ten years since evolutionary biology is a little hobby of mine. Shame is an integral part of wolf social structure. We've known dolphins to have a sense of humor for some time already. No I'm not going to bother to spend a few hours looking for all kinds of studies since you are a dead-set ignorant megalomaniac and will dismiss them out of hand.

Well I am interested. I don't need many studies, I've tried googling for them but couldnt find anything substantial in the first few pages, but there's also too much wrong results since they're popular topics in general.

I did in fact overlook dolphins in my pondering and they seem important so I am definitely interested in that.

I only analyzed the direct "ascent" of evolution to mankind. I never really looked at offshoots like birds.

In a more general way, I in fact do allow for a concept change in that regard. It seems that tissue, especially nervous tissue in the body kinda "grows other tissue" as evolution proceeds, so it might be feasible to understand all brain tissue to process stimuli and track some state in relation to that. A higher order function could develop(in the form of extra tissue bulk connected properly) to predict future state in order to allow an investement(temporary supression of some other state-pain). It seems the brain evolved in many such "moves"/chunks so it might be possible that some species have evolved extra chunks of the brain allowing some extra functions similar or common with humans. But this should be an exception more than a rule when looking at animal clades in general.

 

I have no confusion about some animals being self-aware. I believe some are. I'm not denying that this isn't debatable because it is very debatable. You pointing to the existence of the debate in the scientific community and interpreting it as "you're ignorant and wrong, animals are not self-aware" is the same attitude creationists have with scientific debates how to classify an animal, they say "see, evolution is wrong, that is species is fully ape" (for example)

I'm sorry, but as said, my first post was a pompous challenge of your post, there was nothing offensive in it.

Don't complain about something you started.

I responded to the comment that I'm incoherent and that I'm circularly defining awareness or whatever. I believe I addressed the comment well especially with last posts.

I guess we could have skipped all this, no?
 

There is similar debate over the definition of consciousness or self-awareness in both the scientific and philosophical communities. Your attitude is unacceptable and unprofessional. You flat out said they were not synonymous and then patronized me to look it up, which I did and lo-and-behold I didn't have to go far before I found a definition making them synonymous.

No, you commented that I'm incoherent and making circural definitions or talking nonsense or whatever. What choice does one have in such circumstances then tell you to look it up?

It also seems now that suddenly I'm not incoherent, but the debate I started with you is in fact a common one.
 

If you had a shred of decency you would have recognized that and apologized to me. But you don't, so you didn't.

I did not imply in my first post to you that your reasoning is of chauvinist origin nor that you are incoherent. You did that.

I just made a bold claim. Nothing more. So...

This is a chance for you to learn something about your reactivity rather than teach me a lesson in apologizing for being bold.
 

Your concept of evolution is still flawed, and you rest your arguments upon that flawed understanding. You have not bothered to correct your premises. Go ahead and bulldoze onward if you like.

But persue these first for your own sake, just to get an idea of the bigger picture here:

http://plato.stanfor.../consciousness/
http://plato.stanfor...ousness-animal/
http://www.scientifi...classic-mirror/

Then take a gander at the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, then come back and tell me *I'm* confused. If I am confused, then I believe myself in good company.

I will read the links.

I don't really care about declarations or definitions though. This was never the topic as someone already commented. I only used quotes and links because I was deemed incoherent.

This is a topic to provide a simple description of consciousness, not a dictionary definition. In that sense I tried to stress the importance of discerning awareness from consciousness and I commented your post to that end.

[Brafarality]

 

 

I don't think an answer can exist in the sense of the original question because consciousness is not a thing, it's a process.

 

 

It may be a poorly phrased question, but I can't help but get very skeptical when people deny that consciousness exists or describe it in ways so fundamentally different from one's personal experiential understanding of it.

 

I definitely cannot explain or describe it with any accuracy, which is why I asked if anyone would help me out and take a crack at it, and I don't quite get what it is, but I do not believe that it is a process. It just seems too far removed from self-perception of our own consciousness. That does not mean that it is definitively not a process, just that, imho, it is unlikely.

 

There has to be a way that describes it. Maybe even an analogy or metaphor, colorful figurative language combined with something more empirical. Not sure. Still not sure.

 

But, thanks much for replying! Very interesting discussion taking place.

 

And, as a reminder- Ize not one of those OPs who cares whether discussion drifts from what I originally asked about and who subsequently gets demanding about bringing discourse back to opening post questions. I personally think those people are a-holes. Anything and all things are good and fair and ripe for banter and pondering. PeaceOut

[Duchykins]

You're overdoing it here. First, I never really challenged your ideas of the definition of consciousness, I was defending my own from your attacks.

And I was "defending back".
 

I don't really disagree with your definition of consciousness since the general idea is correct, there are often multiple definitions for a single word, and the concepts of consciousness and self-awareness are incredibly vague to begin with. I simply see no reason to go with your preference as "THE" definition of consciousness.

I beleive I argumented the reasons for changing your mind above. This is a discussion so.. we're discussing it and providing arguments.

I also beleive I did not offend you even though I came on all pompous. While you did offend me.

Note the difference. I challenged your post, fair and square. You used my post to make indirect statements about me. Nothing in your first reply to me is in fact on topic.

I am sorry I came on that pompous.
 

Second, I never spoke of personal anecdotes about wolves, birds, dolphins, the evidence I've seen consists of dozens of studies on these species and others over the past ten years since evolutionary biology is a little hobby of mine. Shame is an integral part of wolf social structure. We've known dolphins to have a sense of humor for some time already. No I'm not going to bother to spend a few hours looking for all kinds of studies since you are a dead-set ignorant megalomaniac and will dismiss them out of hand.

Well I am interested. I don't need many studies, I've tried googling for them but couldnt find anything substantial in the first few pages, but there's also too much wrong results since they're popular topics in general.

I did in fact overlook dolphins in my pondering and they seem important so I am definitely interested in that.

I only analyzed the direct "ascent" of evolution to mankind. I never really looked at offshoots like birds.

In a more general way, I in fact do allow for a concept change in that regard. It seems that tissue, especially nervous tissue in the body kinda "grows other tissue" as evolution proceeds, so it might be feasible to understand all brain tissue to process stimuli and track some state in relation to that. A higher order function could develop(in the form of extra tissue bulk connected properly) to predict future state in order to allow an investement(temporary supression of some other state-pain). It seems the brain evolved in many such "moves"/chunks so it might be possible that some species have evolved extra chunks of the brain allowing some extra functions similar or common with humans. But this should be an exception more than a rule when looking at animal clades in general.

 

I have no confusion about some animals being self-aware. I believe some are. I'm not denying that this isn't debatable because it is very debatable. You pointing to the existence of the debate in the scientific community and interpreting it as "you're ignorant and wrong, animals are not self-aware" is the same attitude creationists have with scientific debates how to classify an animal, they say "see, evolution is wrong, that is species is fully ape" (for example)

I'm sorry, but as said, my first post was a pompous challenge of your post, there was nothing offensive in it.

Don't complain about something you started.

I responded to the comment that I'm incoherent and that I'm circularly defining awareness or whatever. I believe I addressed the comment well especially with last posts.

I guess we could have skipped all this, no?
 

There is similar debate over the definition of consciousness or self-awareness in both the scientific and philosophical communities. Your attitude is unacceptable and unprofessional. You flat out said they were not synonymous and then patronized me to look it up, which I did and lo-and-behold I didn't have to go far before I found a definition making them synonymous.

No, you commented that I'm incoherent and making circural definitions or talking nonsense or whatever. What choice does one have in such circumstances then tell you to look it up?

It also seems now that suddenly I'm not incoherent, but the debate I started with you is in fact a common one.
 

If you had a shred of decency you would have recognized that and apologized to me. But you don't, so you didn't.

I did not imply in my first post to you that your reasoning is of chauvinist origin nor that you are incoherent. You did that.

I just made a bold claim. Nothing more. So...

This is a chance for you to learn something about your reactivity rather than teach me a lesson in apologizing for being bold.
 

Your concept of evolution is still flawed, and you rest your arguments upon that flawed understanding. You have not bothered to correct your premises. Go ahead and bulldoze onward if you like.

But persue these first for your own sake, just to get an idea of the bigger picture here:

http://plato.stanfor.../consciousness/
http://plato.stanfor...ousness-animal/
http://www.scientifi...classic-mirror/

Then take a gander at the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, then come back and tell me *I'm* confused. If I am confused, then I believe myself in good company.

I will read the links.

I don't really care about declarations or definitions though. This was never the topic as someone already commented. I only used quotes and links because I was deemed incoherent.

This is a topic to provide a simple description of consciousness, not a dictionary definition. In that sense I tried to stress the importance of discerning awareness from consciousness and I commented your post to that end.

Why do you keep saying that I started something? I just came and dropped my idea about self-awareness and its relation to sensory experience. I never replied to you before you do to me. You started patronizing me about my usage of consciousness/self-awareness and then told me to look it up, and you were wrong in the doing of it. You had no basis to respond to me as you did with my first post in this thread. Your initial reply was incoherent and I'm pleased you made an attempt to be more technical about it, despite the fact that I still disagree with your ideas of evolution and consciousness/self-awareness


The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is not what you think it is, it has nothing to do with definions, it would be wise of you to read it before making any more dismissive assumptions. You have a very bad habit of jumping to conclusions and believing you know enough about the topic to have strong opinions about it. This is not the kind of subject any of us should have such strong opinions about *because* we know and understand so little about it from a scientific perspective.


Have a good day friend

[addx]

Why do you keep saying that I started something? I just came and dropped my idea about self-awareness and its relation to sensory experience. I never replied to you before you do to me. You started patronizing me about my usage of consciousness/self-awareness and then told me to look it up, and you were wrong in the doing of it. You had no basis to respond to me as you did with my first post in this thread. Your initial reply was incoherent and I'm pleased you made an attempt to be more technical about it, despite the fact that I still disagree with your ideas of evolution and consciousness/self-awareness

I started discussing, you dismissed everything I wrote in my first post towards you(and the rest on the entire page) with insults. Do you need a quote?

Here:
 

Your reasoning and language are incoherent. You say consciousness is not awareness and then go on to say that consciousness is awareness.

Your dog example is patently absurd and is just another manifestation of human chauvinism.

The point I was trying to make is obviously a valid one even though there is no concensus about it. You admit to this now. It is also unimaginable to think that out of all my text in the first page you couldn't recognize what I was stressing and are recognizing it now.


The dog example is just an example of "consciousness in the context" - a dog being a dog, a cat being a cat, a police officer being a police officer. You see a human can assume many roles for many groups, a dog can't. There's no chauvinism about this, it's just an example to provide material for distincting awareness from consciousness. I'm not here to insult animals.

I made more attempts to explain it before you rendered me incoherent and chauvinistuc:
 

An assertation that YOU are doing it the wrong way results in extra ego processing/relating - you vs. others per future. The awareness processes what happened from the point of view of investement into the future. It is a higher order mechanism. It keeps track of ability to "be a dog", "be a cat", usefulness of such abilities in relation to social dominance. It keeps track of "ego".

And now read the study of vmPFC damage which I provided on this page:
 

A recent study (Moretti et al., 2009) tests the role of temporal aspects of incentives in accepting unfair offers by offering concrete, immediate or abstract, future rewards in the ultimatum game. They find that VMPFC patients reject unfair offers more often only when rewards are abstract and delayed and not when immediate and concrete rewards (dollar bills) are presented. This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

Now please explain to me, is all my effort worth only the comment that I'm making chauvinistic incoherent claims? Seriously?

Or is it the capsed "consciousness is NOT awareness" that sparked your reply?

 

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is not what you think it is, it has nothing to do with definions, it would be wise of you to read it before making any more dismissive assumptions. You have a very bad habit of jumping to conclusions and believing you know enough about the topic to have strong opinions about it. This is not the kind of subject any of us should have such strong opinions about *because* we know and understand so little about it from a scientific perspective.


Have a good day friend

I will read it then.

I do also have an extreme suspicion at other peoples conclusions especially about these kinds of things.

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[Duchykins]

Why do you keep saying that I started something? I just came and dropped my idea about self-awareness and its relation to sensory experience. I never replied to you before you do to me. You started patronizing me about my usage of consciousness/self-awareness and then told me to look it up, and you were wrong in the doing of it. You had no basis to respond to me as you did with my first post in this thread. Your initial reply was incoherent and I'm pleased you made an attempt to be more technical about it, despite the fact that I still disagree with your ideas of evolution and consciousness/self-awareness

I started discussing, you dismissed everything I wrote in my first post(and on the entire page) with insults. Do you need a quote?

Here:

Your reasoning and language are incoherent. You say consciousness is not awareness and then go on to say that consciousness is awareness.

Your dog example is patently absurd and is just another manifestation of human chauvinism.

The point I was trying to make is obviously a valid one even though there is no concensus about it. You admit to this now. It is also unimaginable to think that out of all my text in the first page you couldn't recognize what I was stressing and are recognizing it now.


The dog example is just an example of "consciousness in the context" - a dog being a dog, a cat being a cat, a police officer being a police officer. You see a human can assume many roles for many groups, a dog can't. There's no chauvinism about this, it's just an example to provide material for distincting awareness from consciousness. I'm not here to insult animals.

I made more attempts to explain it before you rendered me incoherent and chauvinistuc:

An assertation that YOU are doing it the wrong way results in extra ego processing/relating - you vs. others per future. The awareness processes what happened from the point of view of investement into the future. It is a higher order mechanism. It keeps track of ability to "be a dog", "be a cat", usefulness of such abilities in relation to social dominance. It keeps track of "ego".

And now read the study of vmPFC damage which I provided on this page:

A recent study (Moretti et al., 2009) tests the role of temporal aspects of incentives in accepting unfair offers by offering concrete, immediate or abstract, future rewards in the ultimatum game. They find that VMPFC patients reject unfair offers more often only when rewards are abstract and delayed and not when immediate and concrete rewards (dollar bills) are presented. This finding suggests that damage to the VMPFC reduces the motivation to obtain future rewards and results in an inability to adapt behavior according to long-term consequences

Now please explain to me, is all my effort worth only the comment that I'm making chauvinistic incoherent claims? Seriously?

Or is it the capsed "consciousness is NOT awareness" that sparked your reply?

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness is not what you think it is, it has nothing to do with definions, it would be wise of you to read it before making any more dismissive assumptions. You have a very bad habit of jumping to conclusions and believing you know enough about the topic to have strong opinions about it. This is not the kind of subject any of us should have such strong opinions about *because* we know and understand so little about it from a scientific perspective.


Have a good day friend

I will read it then.

I do also have an extreme suspicion at other peoples conclusions especially about these kinds of things.

Suspicion is just fine, even healthy. I am suspicious too.


If you hadn't presumed to start telling me about how consciousness is not synonymous with self-awareness in the manner that you did, and being utterly wrong in the process, we wouldn't be doing this right now. There is no consensus, I brought that up several times because YOU kept acting as if there was a consensus and you had the sources to back it up. You also keep misrepresenting me which does not help the situation.

"A human can assume many roles for many groups, a dog can't" LOL! Dogs aren't freqeuently allowed to run around in packs, are they? Your continued references to dogs are absurd partly because they are domesticated animals used by humans for specific purposes, if they are not part of a pack *withou human interference* then they have no chance to develop a complex heirarchy with assorted jobs for respective dogs. But if you continue to deny their adaptability then you are a complete idiot. Not to mention, comparing canines to humans in this manner is a bit of a false analogy because canine groups aren't nearly as large as human groups, there is no reason or opportunity to have so much division of labor, so less animals can wind up with more tasks. This can create the illusion of lack of diversity in roles. Wolves in natural wolf packs are a very different matter from pet dogs.

This back and forth between us is no longer contributing to the thread topic so I will cease replying unless there is something that may benefit others reading the thread.

Good day.

Edited by Duchykins, 23 April 2014 - 06:33 PM.

[johnross47]

 

 

 

I don't think an answer can exist in the sense of the original question because consciousness is not a thing, it's a process.

 

 

It may be a poorly phrased question, but I can't help but get very skeptical when people deny that consciousness exists or describe it in ways so fundamentally different from one's personal experiential understanding of it.

 

I definitely cannot explain or describe it with any accuracy, which is why I asked if anyone would help me out and take a crack at it, and I don't quite get what it is, but I do not believe that it is a process. It just seems too far removed from self-perception of our own consciousness. That does not mean that it is definitively not a process, just that, imho, it is unlikely.

 

There has to be a way that describes it. Maybe even an analogy or metaphor, colorful figurative language combined with something more empirical. Not sure. Still not sure.

 

But, thanks much for replying! Very interesting discussion taking place.

 

And, as a reminder- Ize not one of those OPs who cares whether discussion drifts from what I originally asked about and who subsequently gets demanding about bringing discourse back to opening post questions. I personally think those people are a-holes. Anything and all things are good and fair and ripe for banter and pondering. PeaceOut

 

When I say it's not a thing, I mean it in the same way as saying that any other brain events are not things. They may take place in particular locations, usually in a sequence of interacting locations, but that doesn't mean that there is one single dedicated object there. The experience of pain is the feeling you get when your homeostatic control system records damage or stress in tissues or organs. It is felt as located in the body, but is actually in the body map in the brain and pain is simply the experience that arises from what your body is doing, just as anger is the feeling that arises when certain hormones and neural messengers are activated. Contrary to how it feels, and how it is assumed to operate by popular psychology, the somatic events precede the feeling. The feeling is how your brain registers the chemical events in your body which you have learned to call anger. The detail and smoothness of conscious experience disguises that fact that the salient feed is constantly changing its source. There have been recent attempts by non specialists, such as, Max Tegmark to explain consciousness;

 

"We examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, "perceptronium", with distinctive information processing abilities. We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: the information, integration, independence, dynamics and utility principles. If such principles can identify conscious entities, then they can help solve the quantum factorization problem: why do conscious observers like us perceive the particular Hilbert space factorization corresponding to classical space (rather than Fourier space, say), and more generally, why do we perceive the world around us as a dynamic hierarchy of objects that are strongly integrated and relatively independent? Tensor factorization of matrices is found to play a central role, and our technical results include a theorem about Hamiltonian separability (defined using Hilbert-Schmidt superoperators) being maximized in the energy eigenbasis. Our approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's integrated information framework for neural-network-based consciousness to arbitrary quantum systems, and we find interesting links to error-correcting codes, condensed matter criticality, and the Quantum Darwinism program, as well as an interesting connection between the emergence of consciousness and the emergence of time."    http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

 

but this still leaves it as a sequence of events in distributed parts of the brain, not a thing. The same goes for the theories of Penrose.   

 

What they seem to be looking for is some sort of special difference in the neurons that generate conscious experiences, but even if they find that some neurons in for example, the posteromedial cortices, posses these hypothesised features, it will still not make consciousness a thing, rather it will be a property of the neurons that allows certain distinct processes to occur. 

[addx]

"A human can assume many roles for many groups, a dog can't" LOL! Dogs aren't freqeuently allowed to run around in packs, are they?

That's just it - you're not reading me or my quotes.

Dogs are simply engaged by the park and other animals if there. They are conscious of their surroundings and perhaps even themselves as part of the surroundings, but not of their *abilities to handle surroundings* before or after they are engaged by such surroundings.

Humans are, in addition to that, engaged by their "imagination" which keeps *continuous* track of ego ability (meaning being a good father, a good worker, a solid citizen, a good reader).

The dog is engaged by the park and this shows that he is a good runner or a good looking dog, whatever. He did not invest into that ability nor is he aware of its potential. He is completely unable to weigh the effort in developing an ability and is thus unable to choose to develop it. A dogs abilities are developed by the surroundings and they are only developed through continuous stimulus (rewards or punishment) and are not developed as investement stemming from awareness of their usefullness.

Human activation is therefore not neccesarily engaged by immediate surroundings. Notice how many times I pointed this out in my text and you still bulldoze through this(to use your methaphors). It is also stressed in ALL the quotes I posted that refer to what I call consciousness and awareness and it is also stressed in the vmPFC study i posted.

So, maybe we should go over your understanding of animal evidence to the contrary of my beleifs.


 
 
 

Your continued references to dogs are absurd partly because they are domesticated animals used by humans for specific purposes, if they are not part of a pack *withou human interference* then they have no chance to develop a complex heirarchy with assorted jobs for respective dogs.

Yes, they can develop assorted jobs for respective dogs. This is a step above ants phenotyping roles at conception since roles are assumed by demonstraton of ability(which is not invested into consciously without any immediate reward/punishment)It is a step below being aware of your role and making a conscious investement into changing it or assuming new ones.
The dogs investements are not conscious(consciously weighed against future as explained). He just performs. His role is assumed according to his performance and trained according to surroudings. There is no subjective plan about this. As the surroundings unfold so does the dog to handle them. It is always stream-like from surroundings.

Humans are not, they have a "buffer"/memory for streaming a life-long stream of surroundings into their imagination and use it to perform higher order calculations of the future for weighing investements in the now.

 

This back and forth between us is no longer contributing to the thread topic so I will cease replying unless there is something that may benefit others reading the thread.

I can let it go.

I do believe this discerning is useful for the thread. Please answer without references to the "back and forth bussiness".

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 07:26 PM.

[Duchykins]

"A human can assume many roles for many groups, a dog can't" LOL! Dogs aren't freqeuently allowed to run around in packs, are they?

That's just it - you're not reading me or my quotes.

Dogs are simply engaged by the park and other animals if there. They are conscious of their surroundings and perhaps even themselves as part of the surroundings, but not of their *abilities to handle surroundings* before or after they are engaged by such surroundings.

Humans are, in addition to that, engaged by their "imagination" which keeps *continuous* track of ego ability (meaning being a good father, a good worker, a solid citizen, a good reader).

The dog is engaged by the park and this shows that he is a good runner or a good looking dog, whatever. He did not invest into that ability nor is he aware of its potential. He is completely unable to weigh the effort in developing an ability and is thus unable to choose to develop it. A dogs abilities are developed by the surroundings and they are only developed through continuous stimulus (rewards or punishment) and are not developed as investement stemming from awareness of their usefullness.

Human activation is therefore not neccesarily engaged by immediate surroundings. Notice how many times I pointed this out in my text and you still bulldoze through this(to use your methaphors). It is also stressed in ALL the quotes I posted that refer to what I call consciousness and awareness and it is also stressed in the vmPFC study i posted.

So, maybe we should go over your understanding of animal evidence to the contrary of my beleifs.


 
 
 

Your continued references to dogs are absurd partly because they are domesticated animals used by humans for specific purposes, if they are not part of a pack *withou human interference* then they have no chance to develop a complex heirarchy with assorted jobs for respective dogs.

Yes, they can develop assorted jobs for respective dogs. This is a step above ants phenotyping roles at conception since roles are assumed by demonstraton of ability(which is not invested into consciously without any immediate reward/punishment)It is a step below being aware of your role and making a conscious investement into changing it or assuming new ones.
The dogs investements are not conscious(consciously weighed against future as explained). He just performs. His role is assumed according to his performance and trained according to surroudings. There is no subjective plan about this. As the surroundings unfold so does the dog to handle them. It is always stream-like from surroundings.

Humans are not, they have a "buffer"/memory for streaming a life-long stream of surroundings into their imagination and use it to perform higher order calculations of the future for weighing investements in the now.

 

This back and forth between us is no longer contributing to the thread topic so I will cease replying unless there is something that may benefit others reading the thread.

I can let it go.

I do believe this discerning is useful for the thread. Please answer without references to the "back and forth bussiness".

Dogs are domesticated and removed from a wild environment. Comparisions are dishonest and contrived. No doubt the source of your information uses dogs as examples in abundance precisely because it is a flawed comparison. Notice how you avoid speaking of wolves, dolphins, other social animals in the WILD. Dogs with different owners interacting at the park for short period of time are NOT a pack, you halfwit. Go ahead and argue that humans can abstract better than dogs can, but not that way since it is a very stupid way to do it. And certainly don't argue that dogs cannot abstract at all since that is a bald-faced lie.

Your efforts to point out that humans are 'smarter' than dogs is absolutely useless since I never argued otherwise. You are making arguments against positions I do not have.

YOU argued that only primates are self-aware and all you've done is call upon a domesticated animal which is an inappropriate example. I am arguing for the middle while you are arguing for thee far-right field. You have not undermined anything I have said, especially by jumping to the extremes as you have been doing.

You chastized me for using concscious and self-aware interchangeably (as synonyms). You were wrong for that.

You based your arguments on a straw man of popularized evolutionary mechanisms. You were wrong for that.

You stated only primates can feel shame. You were wrong for that.

You states only primates can feel humor. You were wrong for that.

You're using a dated and popularized hypothesis of the triune brain that is not terribly useful in a scientific manner except in the most vague and general of ways, and that is also not wholly consistent with recent discoveries.

Your best piece of evidence is a study about a certain kind of brain damage in humans. Oh well, then OF COURSE this applies to the entire animal kingdom since there is only one way evolution can produce a conscious animal! Oh wow why didn't I think of that ...??

You dismissed the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness without even knowing what it was. You're still making arguments based on outdated interpretations of neuroscience that are specifically addressed by the Declaration.

You admitted to not being well-read on the topic. Every time you have been corrected you did not acknowledge and alter your arguments accordingly. This is indicative of an egotistical mindset wherein your position is absolute and immovable and lacking the humility for a proper scientific perspective.

I really hope you're not an atheist, because you're behaving like a creationist.

Edited by Duchykins, 23 April 2014 - 09:58 PM.

[addx]

Dogs are domesticated and removed from a wild environment. Comparisions are dishonest and contrived.

It's just a short word and a mammal, there's no pun intended, how many times do I have to say this. I can use basicly any other lower mammal.
 

No doubt the source of your information uses dogs as examples in abundance precisely because it is a flawed comparison.

There's no source, it came of the top of my head. It's a word, restrain your emotions.
 

Notice how you avoid speaking of wolves, dolphins, other social animals in the WILD.

No I don't. I asked you to talk of them, you were too lazy to provide any examples or evidence. The dog-park example was provided by YOU and dismissed by text that was already written in the thread. My dogs could have been understood as wild dogs, there are such creatures you know.
 

Dogs with different owners interacting at the park for short period of time are NOT a pack, you halfwit.

Who said they are? I never actually said I meant domesticated dogs ever. You're strawmanning me with that. And even insulting the strawman. Please restrain yourself.
 

Go ahead and argue that humans can abstract better than dogs can, but not that way since it is a very stupid way to do it. And certainly don't argue that dogs cannot abstract at all since that is a bald-faced lie.

I believe I provided ample arguments without references to dogs.
 

Your efforts to point out that humans are 'smarter' than dogs is absolutely useless since I never argued otherwise. You are making arguments against positions I do not have.

No, that's your strawman.

I'm not here to prove animals are stupid and in fact I have included apes with humans. So you're not being coherent.
 

YOU argued that only primates are self-aware and all you've done is call upon a domesticated animal which is an inappropriate example.

No, I've provided ample text, you just didn't read it.

 

I am arguing for the middle while you are arguing for thee far-right field. You have not undermined anything I have said, especially by jumping to the extremes as you have been doing.

You didn't say anything except dissmisive claims. Your first effort to provide an example was met with you not reading my arguments.

 

You chastized me for using concscious and self-aware interchangeably (as synonyms). You were wrong for that.

I wasn't. This is not a grammar discussion. You did not prove I was wrong, you did not even attempt, except via dictionary references.
 

You based your arguments on a straw man of popularized evolutionary mechanisms. You were wrong for that.

No I don't. I created my theory from stratch.

The straw man is you trying to display me as some animal chauvinist. It is insane as I include primates(apes) with humans. I include them on tangible evidence - vmPFC and a coherent theory.
 

You stated only primates can feel shame. You were wrong for that.

No I wasn't. You never argumented or provided references for this claim. I actually tried to find it myself, but admittedly I only checked out the first few pages of search results to no avail
 

You states only primates can feel humor. You were wrong for that.

No I wasn't. You never argumented or provided references for this claim. I actually tried to find it myself, but admittedly I only checked out the first few pages of search results to no avail.
 

You're using a dated and popularized hypothesis of the triune brain that is not terribly useful in a scientific manner except in the most vague and general of ways, and that is also not wholly consistent with recent discoveries.

No I wasn't. I'm not using anyones hypothesis, I'm not well-read in other peoples theories, remember?

I have also demonstrated that my understanding that I arrived at from strach is practically identical to the most prominents scientist in the field Damasio and also pointing at the same brain formation with the same explanations.

So I am quite happy with my achievements and I applaud myself.
 

Your best piece of evidence is a study about a certain kind of brain damage in humans. Oh well, then OF COURSE this applies to the entire animal kingdom since there is only one way evolution can produce a conscious animal! Oh wow why didn't I think of that ...??

No, that's just one piece of evidence. I did say that I allow offshoots to create analogous brain formations but this needs to be proven rather than romanticised. It doesn't really challenge my theory.

The point of my theory is not to dismiss animals but to discern brain parts and behavior that is allowed by them. I am not romantic about this. A brain part allows "awareness". For now I have only seen vmPFC like functioning in apes and humans. And I can also claim that it is basicaly unimaginable that a reptile or prereptile has vmPFC like functioning.

 

You dismissed the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness without even knowing what it was. You're still making arguments based on outdated interpretations of neuroscience that are specifically addressed by the Declaration.

No, I'm interpreting it myself, as said, I don't like other peoples conclusions. And it's not outdated, it's on par with Damasio. So it's advanced, thank you very much.

 

You admitted to not being well-read on the topic.

No, I admitted to not being well-read on other peoples theories.

I have read a minimum of 2000-3000 neurological and pharmacological raw studies on pubmed that relate to this.
 

Every time you have been corrected you did not acknowledge and alter your arguments accordingly. This is indicative of an egotistical mindset wherein your position is absolute and immovable and lacking the humility for a proper scientific perspective.

I really hope you're not an atheist, because you're behaving like a creationist.

I have never been corrected, only dismissed. You have not provided a shred of text towards your claims. I have provided many arguments that weren't even properly read.

You created a strawman out of the "dog thing" and me dismissing some lame "declaration". You're not trying to understand me but shame me and insult me and I've had enough.

You're confining the argument with political correctness emotions towards animals which is a creationst way of confining science with "ethics".

I've read the declaration of consciousness and it is an ethical declaration. It completely ignores the distinction between feeling an emotion and being aware of feeling an emotion.

1. Feeling an emotion results in immediate behavior to remove it.
2. Being aware of feeling an emotion results in *planning*(meaning not induces by surroundings) for feeling or not feeling the emotion again.

This means 2. surpresses 1. if it deems it better.

1. is lower mammals and psychopaths(true fearless psychopaths).
2. is apes and humans.

The distinction is well formed, well explained, and well demonstrateable to separate primates from lower mammals. Now perhaps dolphins are able to demonstrate 2. as well, I am interested in that, but this distracts from the point I made towards the point you want to make - that I'm some kind of animal hater.

The point is that 2. "Awareness" is well defined as a system, brain part, you name it. It is also recognized since buddha. So I have proven my initial point regardless of the fact if the dolphin can perform the same functions as humans or not.

The declaration of consciousness is also not proof of anything. I never claimed animals can't feel pain. The declaratino does not intend to discern ability to plan from ability to feel pain and it's purpose is quite clearly scientists using their authority to direct the general population against harming animals and raise awareness of animal suffering. So, while I do support that I do not find it persuasive in the least as per the topic.

Now, if you can provide some arguments rather than dismiss me by creating a strawman of political incorrectness we can continue, otherwise I've had enough of your emotional insulting dismissal.

I wanted to spark an on topic discussion on a discussion board. I did not insult you with my first post that addressed you. You just felt like that due to being corrected. It seems this is an insult for you by default.

You seem to want to pretend you would be ok with being corrected if I was really correct, but you don't really care if I am really correct, you're not giving my text a shred of chance to be understood properly, so you already know that I am not correct before even reading what I say. Because I corrected you - I can not be correct. So that's your emotional reaction and I'm tired of it. Get your emotions in line and stop insulting. Provide arguments, references or shut up with the unsupported claims of me being wrong or incohorent.
If you don't like your opinion challenged then don't give it on an online board.

You also declared to be tired of the "back and forth", so I gave a reply only towards on topic discussion, ignoring your statements about me being utterly wrong about something that you agree is in wide debate and noone is right, but I'm utterly wrong etc. You then make a long winded post resurrecting the "back and forth" 10 fold. Here's a long winded post back then. And looking back now I see that this is just a waste of time.




Just one comment on the declaration of consciousness.

The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures.

The idea that they were is ridiculous in the first place. It's an expectation to find a brain part for each emotion stemming from the basic intent under 1. already mentioned above "feeling an emotion and wanting to remove it".


The rest of the declaration pretty much explains that, but confuses awareness of emotion from simply feeling it as already discerned by 1. and 2. (consciusness and awareness)

Now I can imagine how consciousness feels like. When doing something intensive and objetifying, like sports where you have to perform and focus on a single role - awareness is most reduced and you feel in the moment - adrenaline and all. This is close to how you feel when 100% without awareness. There is also examples of people simply (re)acting in dire situations(defending their friends or children etc) and claiming they witnessed what they were doing but were also somehow not there. My take is that at that point they completely lost awareness(choice to interpret surroundings with relation to internal track of state of surroundings and investment outcome) and only had consciousness(directly interpet surroundings causing choiceless acting). These mind states are recognizeable within oneself, so why don't you admit that?

Edited by addx, 24 April 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[addx]

Oh yes, the ethical implication of my claim in fact confirms/is aligned with common sense ethics.

Animals without awareness(vmPFC like functioning) can not be held responsible for their actions since they can not plan them, they can not plan against them. It shows that while animals are conscious of their surroundings and their bodies, they are not conscious(aware) of non-immediate consequences of their actions.


So, animals do feel pain and humans should be held responsbile for not planning against harming them since humans can plan.

Animals can't plan and should not be held responsible for hurting anyone because of it.


There's nothing "breaching" the declaration of consciousness from my theory or any ethics, so get off my case already.

If you know of a non-primate that is able to plan their own future self and invest effort into such conceived plans please provide evidence. Such evidence will only change the theory to include those animals.

Other than that, you're wrong about consciousness being same as awereness or simply ignorant in your stubborn intention not to discern between the two.

Edited by addx, 24 April 2014 - 09:23 AM.

[addx]

I read your links

http://www.scientifi...classic-mirror/

Mirror test does not prove awarenes of subjective self, just the objective self(the body) as explained already. The mirror and the body looking at it are in immediate circumstances. There is no investement/delay test here.

So, you are confusing yourself with mirror tests and what it actually means towards my claims. It means nothing. It does not include a time dimensions, it is immediate.

It does not reveal "awareness of possibility", just "awareness of now". You might be able to understand that.








The other two links contain a lot of text, I've read maybe half, but I'm not sure what's your point with all that?

There's 100s of scientists quoted among those two texts and they all go against each others claims. So in light of that, even though they are all reputable scientists, more than half of them must be WRONG, but more than likely all of them to the extent of providing something useful. Which is why I don't bother reading much of that. It's simply MOSTLY WRONG. I don't need other peoples wrongness for anything. I can use their data, but not their wrongness.

[addx]

Just to add. Notice how I explained awareness as being aware of consciousness

I explained consciousness as objectifying, providing a role of the body and its surroundings.

Notice what I said about vmPFC function and awareness providing wisdom rather than knowledge.

I also said that awareness provides a connecting notion of all 'consciousnesses' meaning all context/roles one has experienced in relation to each other.

----

So ask yourself, how is wisdom really expressed?

By connecting two objectifying context/roles or two "consciousnesses" and coming to the conclusion that it's a similar process, that history repeats itself, that people endlessly selfdefeat through not being able to "see beyond their consciousness, beyond the immediate".

That's vmPFC for you. That's awareness - providing wisdom for the future, not objectifying knowledge for the now. I've explained it in so many way that you have to be seriously daft not to get it.

And you can see from this that everything I say makes profound sense through any scientific discipline or simply common sense.

Edited by addx, 24 April 2014 - 07:12 PM.

[Duchykins]

Dogs are domesticated and removed from a wild environment. Comparisions are dishonest and contrived.

It's just a short word and a mammal, there's no pun intended, how many times do I have to say this. I can use basicly any other lower mammal.
 

No doubt the source of your information uses dogs as examples in abundance precisely because it is a flawed comparison.

There's no source, it came of the top of my head. It's a word, restrain your emotions.
 

i
Notice how you avoid speaking of wolves, dolphins, other social animals in the WILD.

No I don't. I asked you to talk of them, you were too lazy to provide any examples or evidence. The dog-park example was provided by YOU and dismissed by text that was already written in the thread. My dogs could have been understood as wild dogs, there are such creatures you know.
 

Dogs with different owners interacting at the park for short period of time are NOT a pack, you halfwit.

Who said they are? I never actually said I meant domesticated dogs ever. You're strawmanning me with that. And even insulting the strawman. Please restrain yourself.
 

Go ahead and argue that humans can abstract better than dogs can, but not that way since it is a very stupid way to do it. And certainly don't argue that dogs cannot abstract at all since that is a bald-faced lie.

I believe I provided ample arguments without references to dogs.
 

Your efforts to point out that humans are 'smarter' than dogs is absolutely useless since I never argued otherwise. You are making arguments against positions I do not have.

No, that's your strawman.

I'm not here to prove animals are stupid and in fact I have included apes with humans. So you're not being coherent.
 

YOU argued that only primates are self-aware and all you've done is call upon a domesticated animal which is an inappropriate example.

No, I've provided ample text, you just didn't read it.

 

I am arguing for the middle while you are arguing for thee far-right field. You have not undermined anything I have said, especially by jumping to the extremes as you have been doing.

You didn't say anything except dissmisive claims. Your first effort to provide an example was met with you not reading my arguments.

 

You chastized me for using concscious and self-aware interchangeably (as synonyms). You were wrong for that.

I wasn't. This is not a grammar discussion. You did not prove I was wrong, you did not even attempt, except via dictionary references.
 

You based your arguments on a straw man of popularized evolutionary mechanisms. You were wrong for that.

No I don't. I created my theory from stratch.

The straw man is you trying to display me as some animal chauvinist. It is insane as I include primates(apes) with humans. I include them on tangible evidence - vmPFC and a coherent theory.
 

You stated only primates can feel shame. You were wrong for that.

No I wasn't. You never argumented or provided references for this claim. I actually tried to find it myself, but admittedly I only checked out the first few pages of search results to no avail
 

You states only primates can feel humor. You were wrong for that.

No I wasn't. You never argumented or provided references for this claim. I actually tried to find it myself, but admittedly I only checked out the first few pages of search results to no avail.
 

You're using a dated and popularized hypothesis of the triune brain that is not terribly useful in a scientific manner except in the most vague and general of ways, and that is also not wholly consistent with recent discoveries.

No I wasn't. I'm not using anyones hypothesis, I'm not well-read in other peoples theories, remember?

I have also demonstrated that my understanding that I arrived at from strach is practically identical to the most prominents scientist in the field Damasio and also pointing at the same brain formation with the same explanations.

So I am quite happy with my achievements and I applaud myself.
 

Your best piece of evidence is a study about a certain kind of brain damage in humans. Oh well, then OF COURSE this applies to the entire animal kingdom since there is only one way evolution can produce a conscious animal! Oh wow why didn't I think of that ...??

No, that's just one piece of evidence. I did say that I allow offshoots to create analogous brain formations but this needs to be proven rather than romanticised. It doesn't really challenge my theory.

The point of my theory is not to dismiss animals but to discern brain parts and behavior that is allowed by them. I am not romantic about this. A brain part allows "awareness". For now I have only seen vmPFC like functioning in apes and humans. And I can also claim that it is basicaly unimaginable that a reptile or prereptile has vmPFC like functioning.

 

You dismissed the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness without even knowing what it was. You're still making arguments based on outdated interpretations of neuroscience that are specifically addressed by the Declaration.

No, I'm interpreting it myself, as said, I don't like other peoples conclusions. And it's not outdated, it's on par with Damasio. So it's advanced, thank you very much.

 

You admitted to not being well-read on the topic.

No, I admitted to not being well-read on other peoples theories.

I have read a minimum of 2000-3000 neurological and pharmacological raw studies on pubmed that relate to this.
 

Every time you have been corrected you did not acknowledge and alter your arguments accordingly. This is indicative of an egotistical mindset wherein your position is absolute and immovable and lacking the humility for a proper scientific perspective.

I really hope you're not an atheist, because you're behaving like a creationist.

I have never been corrected, only dismissed. You have not provided a shred of text towards your claims. I have provided many arguments that weren't even properly read.

You created a strawman out of the "dog thing" and me dismissing some lame "declaration". You're not trying to understand me but shame me and insult me and I've had enough.

You're confining the argument with political correctness emotions towards animals which is a creationst way of confining science with "ethics".

I've read the declaration of consciousness and it is an ethical declaration. It completely ignores the distinction between feeling an emotion and being aware of feeling an emotion.

1. Feeling an emotion results in immediate behavior to remove it.
2. Being aware of feeling an emotion results in *planning*(meaning not induces by surroundings) for feeling or not feeling the emotion again.

This means 2. surpresses 1. if it deems it better.

1. is lower mammals and psychopaths(true fearless psychopaths).
2. is apes and humans.

The distinction is well formed, well explained, and well demonstrateable to separate primates from lower mammals. Now perhaps dolphins are able to demonstrate 2. as well, I am interested in that, but this distracts from the point I made towards the point you want to make - that I'm some kind of animal hater.

The point is that 2. "Awareness" is well defined as a system, brain part, you name it. It is also recognized since buddha. So I have proven my initial point regardless of the fact if the dolphin can perform the same functions as humans or not.

The declaration of consciousness is also not proof of anything. I never claimed animals can't feel pain. The declaratino does not intend to discern ability to plan from ability to feel pain and it's purpose is quite clearly scientists using their authority to direct the general population against harming animals and raise awareness of animal suffering. So, while I do support that I do not find it persuasive in the least as per the topic.

Now, if you can provide some arguments rather than dismiss me by creating a strawman of political incorrectness we can continue, otherwise I've had enough of your emotional insulting dismissal.

I wanted to spark an on topic discussion on a discussion board. I did not insult you with my first post that addressed you. You just felt like that due to being corrected. It seems this is an insult for you by default.

You seem to want to pretend you would be ok with being corrected if I was really correct, but you don't really care if I am really correct, you're not giving my text a shred of chance to be understood properly, so you already know that I am not correct before even reading what I say. Because I corrected you - I can not be correct. So that's your emotional reaction and I'm tired of it. Get your emotions in line and stop insulting. Provide arguments, references or shut up with the unsupported claims of me being wrong or incohorent.
If you don't like your opinion challenged then don't give it on an online board.

You also declared to be tired of the "back and forth", so I gave a reply only towards on topic discussion, ignoring your statements about me being utterly wrong about something that you agree is in wide debate and noone is right, but I'm utterly wrong etc. You then make a long winded post resurrecting the "back and forth" 10 fold. Here's a long winded post back then. And looking back now I see that this is just a waste of time.




Just one comment on the declaration of consciousness.

The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures.

The idea that they were is ridiculous in the first place. It's an expectation to find a brain part for each emotion stemming from the basic intent under 1. already mentioned above "feeling an emotion and wanting to remove it".


The rest of the declaration pretty much explains that, but confuses awareness of emotion from simply feeling it as already discerned by 1. and 2. (consciusness and awareness)

Now I can imagine how consciousness feels like. When doing something intensive and objetifying, like sports where you have to perform and focus on a single role - awareness is most reduced and you feel in the moment - adrenaline and all. This is close to how you feel when 100% without awareness. There is also examples of people simply (re)acting in dire situations(defending their friends or children etc) and claiming they witnessed what they were doing but were also somehow not there. My take is that at that point they completely lost awareness(choice to interpret surroundings with relation to internal track of state of surroundings and investment outcome) and only had consciousness(directly interpet surroundings causing choiceless acting). These mind states are recognizeable within oneself, so why don't you admit that?

You included apes with humans, lol. Humans ARE apes. Still failing biology. Pseudointellectuals like you disgust me.

You flat told me that consciousness and self-awareness are not synonyms, and now you are lying about doing so. Disgusting.

The mirror test article was to show you how flawed it is, I didn't post it as evidence that it works. You're still not paying attention, you're still hastily skimming to find something to one-up me with and getting it all backward in the process. You're still a pompous retard and embrassaing yourself in front of everyone.

You gave no evidence that primates are the only animals capable of self-awareness, shame or humor. You merely asserted they did and expect to be taken seriously.

You made your 'theory' from scratch? Well that's almost a relief, I was afraid some douchebag with a PhD had misinterpreted some studies and published his nonsense on the internet somewhere where laypeople could be duped by it, I've seen that kind of thing a few times before with creationists, antivaxxers, food scares, etc. But it turns out you fucked up all by yourself. Alright.


Is English your first language? Or are you misunderstanding everything I say on purpose?

Edited by Duchykins, 24 April 2014 - 07:57 PM.

[addx]

You included apes with humans, lol. Humans ARE apes. Still failing biology. Pseudointellectuals like you disgust me.

Thank you for the nomenclature lesson. It busts a hole in my reasoning wide open.
 

You flat told me that consciousness and self-awareness are not synonyms, and now you are lying about doing so. Disgusting.

I did not imply they were not synonyms with regards to the dictionary. The post contains arguments that are clearly not implying that I'm correcting your grammar.

I just warned of the distinction in regards to the topic of this thread.
 

The mirror test article was to show you how flawed it is, I didn't post it as evidence that it works. You're still not paying attention, you're still hastily skimming to find something to one-up me with and getting it all backward in the process. You're still a pompous retard and embrassaing yourself in front of everyone.

I said myself that it was flawed, why are you showing that to me then?

I just have my expression. If you saw my expression in person you'd see that it's in fact comedic. I don't mind people laughing at me.
 

You gave no evidence that primates are the only animals capable of self-awareness, shame or humor. You merely asserted they did and expect to be taken seriously.

I did give evidence. I explained "awareness" quite coherently, I related it to other theories to find it similarly explained, I found it in the brain as vmPFC and provided arguments toward that and also shown that Damasio suspects the same brain part for the same functions. vmPFC exists only in primates to the best of my knowledge. Primates manifest for example tribal warfare. Find that in other mammals.

I have also clearly shown your misinterpretation of animal behavior showing "awareness" circuits. You don't understand the distinction so you can't claim that dolphins or wolves posses "awareness"(as I defined it).

I can provide heaps more evidence, but since you're not substantiating any of your claims or any of your dismissals, or even reading them, there's no point in wasting my time further.
 

You made your 'theory' from scratch? Well that's almost a relief, I was afraid some douchebag with a PhD had misinterpreted some studies and published his nonsense on the internet somewhere where laypeople could be duped by it, I've seen that kind of thing a few times before with creationists, antivaxxers, food scares, etc. But it turns out you fucked up all by yourself. Alright.

Well aren't you concerned for public safety, kudos. Please tell us some more of your war on ignorance. Does it take a lot of courage? Are you afraid often? Of douchebags I mean.
 

Is English your first language? Or are you misunderstanding everything I say on purpose?

No it is not my first language, so I very much appreciate your grammar lessons.

Edited by addx, 24 April 2014 - 08:34 PM.