I was going to say, what about Von Forester, but you did this already.

1964, "Biological Computers," with W. Ross Ashby, In: Bioastronautics, K. E. Schaefer, Macmillan Co., New York, pp. 333– 360, 1964.

Computational psychiatry (neuro psyciatry/ology) and cognitive behavioral therapy are 'post' modern ideas known to bridge the gap.

And now when I speculate the future, where society reverts back to rationalism from empiricism through the counter argument of us being light based organisms aswell as carbon based, it will be shunned A I recede to my cave, whilst humanity is stuck within the cycle of perpetual counter arguments. There are two gods, one negative one positive.

Also well named, or anyone, what is the difference between Pantheism and Panpsychism, they seem to be social constructs of the same thing. Can also call it Stoicism to some extent - 'logos'

If a being can confuse at least 2 agents that it has consciousness i think it passes the test. The first agent is itself and the second is any other observer you pick. The first agent simply observes what others do but from the inside.

Do not fall for bs like all things have consciousness etc. No. Unless you define as level 1 consciousness the simple knowledge of the laws of nature ie an electron knows how to interact with other matter and fields etc. As you get to molecules they have more complex interactions now, more degrees of freedom so to speak are enabled (i mean they still have the interactions of their parts ie electrons, protons, neutrons but they now create also bonds that are in principle more complex manifestations of those fundamental interactions which however now give them specific refined properties in how they interact with other systems that offer greater variety than the original more elementary parts) that can process or represent information etc (so what level 2 or 3 ?). A cell eventually through its chemistry can do a lot of things and produce behavior that fits a variety of changing environments as if it is thinking about it and understands the world around it and adapts (so what 4-5?). then what 6-7 for a basic small animal eg insects. Then 8-9 for other bigger animals? then 10+ for humans? then 12+ for mankind? That all seems arbitrary but illustrates the levels of complexity available to each system.

For me its still the same basic laws of nature thing for all these systems with simple difference the emergence of higher and higher complexity (ie vast proliferation of possible interactions and their intelligent/information processing nature). In other words all particles obey the same laws but a human being is no longer particle or a molecule or a a cell, its a collection of many such systems so what you perceive as consciousness is not a super local thing its an extended global thing (ok still confined within areas of brain) that requires an extended size of your brain to participate to produce the experience. The way we see ourselves is part of the phenomenon. We have trained to interpret how we feel to various things not very radically different than how a cell is trained by complex chemistry to behave in different ways in different environments. It is an information representation problem. A period of intense training in early life is what makes it all possible (to decode that information supplied through senses). It is all gradually emerging. People that have never seen before for example and get their vision take a huge time to train themselves to understand what it is they are seeing. That right there is part of your clue. Their sense of vision is emerging to them gradually as they train their brain to understand the signals. Vision is en emerging experience of many signals at the same time. A cell doesnt have vision (although some are sensitive to eg light literally)! But even a cell receives information (similar to what vision receives) and processes it.

Don't they just dismiss him because he's a crank?

the difference is between theos and psyche, so unless you exactly equate the two it's not the same. Especially since panpsychism doesn't imply that your human consciousness is the same "consciousness" as everyone else, i.e that there is only one consciousness, in the way that pantheism implies that the entire reality is one theos, one divinity.

I would expect panpsychists like the dude with the hair in smrk's video to believe something more like that there is some fundamental and irreducible thing or property in nature that allows for conscious experience, but without denying the reality of individual consciousness at the level of persons. He would also probably deny that it involved any sort of divinity

-There are orders of consciousness definable i.e how you stated but these are interpretations. You need rationalism to provide counter argument for empiricism and thus continue the line of inquiry allowing empiricism to feed off it. Between all orders mechanisms are occurring, the body as functioned against light limits the scope of empiricism but rationalism provides a calculus for infinitely progressive sequences. Descarte = a function of the sequence is conscious and Kelly = knowledge does not exist without code. That code does not have to be digital just because we are.

-The basic laws of nature are not constant, how are they proved to be constant? All proofs rely on assumption of light speed and light behaviour is proved through quantum mechanics as unpredictable. Or no further predictable than the boldened lines in spirals caused when modeling the prime numbers. There is a finger print and it is gods finger print in a pantheistic constructed version. We will be able to create smarter A.I, just not very smart A.I, using prime number quadratics, or something more complicated I'm not aware of, but we can't create anything not omniscient. We are limited as mortals to beneath the order of consciousness. As I said.

I hope this has shown you the counter argument to your reliance on empiricism. There is little semantic affinity I can provide to someone much more specialized than me.

I know this already. It is more obvious in the vision of self. Matter knows itself and other matter though gravity, dark matter does not know matter however. But the argument is past relativism counter argument.

I would argue that cells clearly have vision, most obvious in that neurons clearly have vision through the stimulus of action potentials which is the same operating platform as eyesight except having differing chemical base structures, the combined vision comprises a singular human cognition, it is architectonic, which may be fragmented or not- or anything part of a system which communicates, even if communication is defined as having cause:effect.

So theos = Deism. Personification is the natural valley the river flows. I equate the two, but I don't deny there can be finite versions of deities and these can be mistaken for god in a Marx hidden super structure sense. Finite = comparable i.e Deity to human self. Both terms imply omniscience and so the self and god are not comparable unless viewed through ego derived empiricist lens. There are theistic and atheistic versions of both terms. It's just natural personification, we name things, give them character, notice their differences, notice what is and isn't controllable.

Also thankyou for clarifying the difference, if i understood you correctly.

Hameroff is the dude who has written some stuff about quantum mechanics and consciousness with Roger Penrose. They may be wrong, and I'm not even remotely qualified to assess the merits of the work they've done (I've "read", if not understood, some of it), but he doesn't seem to be a crank anyway, although you would guess so based on the header of his website :P

fishnoob: you seem to be very sloppy in your use of terminology and wanting to equivocate terms that have always had fairly distinct meanings. You're allowed to do that if you want, but you should understand that a lot of people who talk about panpsychism don't have in mind pantheism, but something more like a revision of reductive physicalism.

I didn't quite follow what you wrote, but if you mean there are theistic and atheistic ways of making sense of panpsychism, that's certainly true, but that's because panpsychism is not pantheism, otherwise there would be no atheistic understanding thereof.

Also pantheism isn't deism either. They are fairly clearly distinguished. The deist thinks that a God which is external to the universe created the universe in some primordial fashion and set the laws which govern it in motion, and is otherwise entirely detached and transcendental. The pantheist thinks the whole of the universe itself is Divine, therefore the Divine is immanent in reality and in no sense separate from it at all.

Thankyou for responding.

Semantic affinity is all. You are more adept in recognizing distinguishable nuances of linguistics, increasing affinity between yourself and others when discussing the essence of these linguistic nuances. That does not infer one is superior or authoritative. And it is humble of you to realize.

So pantheism is the addition of divinity. What is divinity? it is very difficult for me to distinguish because someone says 2 + 0 is different to 2.

In religious terms, divinity is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, or spirit beings, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy.
wiki

Within the route I utilize, somewhere along the way religiousness is removed from the model. As in 'supernatural' is no different to 'metaphysical'. And everything is either metaphysical or physical, it doesn't matter which name you give it.

This is nothing more than a subjective suffix/prefix. From my statement you would guess I am a deist, but I'm not, as I am not a theist, if not accepting that I have my own unique identity with god given freewill, and I didn't/don't associate pantheism with deism. I associated 'theos' with deism. Theos is the only term I had not studied, it seems to be the personification of god, or a name for god,

using wiki as medium which agrees with your statement that panpsychism is different :

Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god

panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. A panpsychist sees themselves as a mind in a world of minds.

And as minds are said to exist, inherent in such a person, is there not a sum of all minds?

The whole process of separating god, inherent in the term 'creator' is founded on already existing personifying cognition. I am pointing out flaws in these definitions if used as rules to distinguish.

Deism not using religious authority, does not mean that through deduction a deist can come to authority and then just call that 'religious'. It doesn't mean anything outside of culture/society - it has no representation in the plane of models within progressed philosophy except for amusing curiosities like randomness just being that skewed in one subeset finite domain where there is a deity residing - that deity is not god in a omniscient/potent/present sense. Maybe that is my problem or maybe that is offensive some how.

To relate to OP so I don't derail totally, to see a difference between programming and 'true' A.I, can only happen in cognition when free will may be given, freewill however cannot be given by something which is omniscient and comprises everything, and especially not a part of it i.e human intelligence, or god using itself to create more, and different, god. Religious knowledge does not mean anything, in the same way there is no concept anyway, of a 'true A.I'. There is always a counter argument, greater, hidden, which translates to determinism.

Sorry for my disorganized post, making the thread look horrible. It is difficult to show how these concepts are together.

edit: To add

Divinity as a quality has two distinct usages:

Divine force or power - powers or forces that are universal, or transcend human capacities
Divinity applied to mortals - qualities of individuals who are considered to have some special access or relationship to the divine.


Your distinguishing factor is actually paradoxical depending from what position you are using and so pantheism changes depending on how you see divinity.

one thing I can say doubtlessly, we will, if given time/resources create more complicated beings than our current most complicated, powerful or most intelligent being in the human race. Because we can work together and store information. But we won't create a being that surpasses humanity. Any being that does, humanity will be ingrained/transmuted into it's soul.

I happen to be a cell, so maybe I can help you out. By consciousness if you mean subjectivity or inner experience, then yes, there is a “what it is like” to be a cell. Since I don’t experience sight, sound and smell, I have no conception of space. My perceptual reality is limited to the chemical and tactile. However, what I perceive I don’t conceive of as something “out there” because my perceptions are limited to the immediate taste and touch perceptions within my membrane. I’m in a sense, my own universe whereby there is no difference, to me, between myself and the universe. Another issue is that when I’m only experiencing the perceptual realm of taste or only the perceptual realm of touch, I have no conception of an object I’m tasting or touching. It’s only when I experience both realms at or near the same time that the notion of an ‘object’ appears, and consequently the notion of me as a ‘subject’ experiencing it appears. I think that’s somewhat analogous to why your (multi-cellular) notion of space emerges: just as I construct the notion of an object to make sense of two realms of experience, touch and taste, occurring simultaneously, you construct the notion of space to make sense of the visual perception and the potential tactile perception of being able to potentially touch what you see. But like the notion of an object, space is merely a mental construct, not something that’s “out there” with you in it. In fact we could say it’s the other way around, since it’s all in our heads, or in yours since I don’t have one.

Also, When does an embryo become consciousness?

Seems to me as there is no definable point, it was always there or it never arrives.

Does that logic apply to all things? When does an embryo begin to hear? Or when does a piano become musical?

Seems pretty absurd in both of those cases (i.e. why would an embryo be able to hear without hearing apparatus, and obviously you would not demand that a pile of lumber and some wire be musical before they are built into a piano -- or going back further, some trees and some unrefined metal in the ground, or going back further, cosmic dust that hasn't formed a planet yet, etc.).

Why should it be the case with consciousness?

Yes it does apply to all things.

My answer is that you have to see my connection of 'no definable point' to 'time'. The post above mine stated that space is 'not there' so the same should apply to time, I say that space and time are both there as hidden super structures (and they exist within an infinite amount of orders) and subjective experience does not have authority on defining truth (empiricism is subjective- despite the delusion that it isn't).

When does a piano become musical? It was always musical or it was never musical. The piano existed in time, before somewhere became aware of it, it's musical component also existed, before the piano was constructed, the music existed in it's materials and the physcial laws which allow for 'musical' to 'birth'. I apply this to myself, before I was born I existed as in idea, or at least as a finite section of an infinite piece of information - which I vouch is impossible, but something possible/similar/unknowable is to blame - I just say this paradox as it is the closest thing I have to reason.

I think Kaleidoscopes are good analogies for this theory. When you turn a kaleidoscope, the image is the same, they just have different co ordinates. But in the hidden truth - who is to determine what co-ordinates actually mean? Only god - the sum and perspective of all combinations- can do this. The musical piano existed in the kaleidoscope, just because you can't see it because time has re arranged it, doesn't mean it is not there. And this is how I see consciousness as fitting that logic. Consciousness is much broader than sight and pianos however for it comprises everything and is god itself - or there is no god and thus humans' do not become conscious- I haven't decided, but I just think it is irrelevant linguistic/semantics anyway.

Ok on reflection you might define something like a fire or virus to be conscious as it reacts to its envoirment. In fact a fire satisfies many requirments of a lot of definitions of life.

However I think if you do this you weaken the defintion of conscious so that it bears little realation to what most people mean when they use the term.

I really cannot agree. In fact, I do not see that consciousness contributes anything. It is not observable except for the individual experiencing it. There is nothing that you can do that can demonstrate to me that you are conscious. I operate under the working hypothesis that you are conscious, but I do that without one shred of actual evidence that you are. All the evidence I have suggests that with sufficient expertise, all of your observable output could theoretically be programmed into a machine (organic or otherwise) without ever having to deal with, define or create consciousness. It may not be technically feasible, but there is no theory that says that it is not possible.

Motivation.

If you are not conscious what is the point of you ever doing anything? Might as well turn yourself off.

I could also point out that we would never have developed consciousness if it was not useful in some way, but you might think that somewhat circular.

I don't see why 'elsewhere in the universe' cannot be simply interpersonal, or at some other point in linear time. I know that consciousness exists in others. I think ants display collective entity, and going that far can't see why not include their eco system within the conscious system. If I worked backwards then I would not find god (as easily).

consciousness... It is not observable except for the individual experiencing it.

Can experience be a sub set of knowledge? Don't know how to distinguish the two in material form. It's possible that every moment is just a random frame which appears to be sitting adjacent to frames which 'make sense', 'one second ago I was eating chocalte so it makes sense I still am now, but it doesn't make sense that I was instead just out of existence in terms of the order of whatever structure is experience, but this frame does not know about the obscure, random, perfectly chaotic frames which outnumber it infinitely, (black bars in spectrum)

Does A.I require experience? Does intelligence?

There is nothing that you can do that can demonstrate to me that you are conscious

It is easy to demonstrate 'unconcious', say If i'm dead or incapacitated. Is that not enough? Btw western society would believe it to be somewhat pathalogical to have this view which discounts experience in others.

Motivation? What does that mean? If I release a rock, it falls. It does not require motivation to fall. My computer does not require motivation to send this response. It is a result of its programming.

Motivation is a concept that makes sense only within the framework of consciousness and maybe free will. Removing consciousness might eliminate the concept of motivation, but it does not remove action.

The entire question of "What is the point" is something that arises from consciousness. If a programmed machine is not conscious it never asks that question, but it can still act. It simply acts as its programming directs it. If it turns itself off, that was also part of its programming.

We do not know why we have consciousness or how it developed. I would not call your comment circular, just unjustified given what we know.

Concerning the bold, I do not think you do.

No, it is not enough. Of course, unconscious means something a little different in this context. I can be unconscious but still have dreams or thoughts. Also, what happens after we are dead is unknown. No one has been able to report on the fate of consciousness after death.

I would agree about the western societal reaction to assuming that there is no consciousness in others. And to be clear, I did say that I used consciousness in others as a working hypothesis. But that does not prevent me from intellectually realizing that my assumption is that and only that.

Ok good point. But anything constructed is about current reality, so I just assume that when defining consciousness we are talking of a process instead of a materialistic version. If cognition is allowed to prove consciousness material, then a simple game of chess would not do? Neuropsychology? Computers?

I would only agree that I can't prove independent consciousness, as in freewill, or creation of randomness, in others, as some boxes are more hard wired, but that question is about other matters.

It is not a working hypothesis, the knowledge should have been innate, forced by evolution, outside of mere linguistics where other people have told you, and your dependence- during early development- on the consciousness of others to attend and shape to your own. You can question everything sure. But then you question nothing.

e: Are you sure you're not including a dimension of 'divinity' in defining consciousness. By saying the after death stuff you are including assumption of divinity possibility which has threw me off.

I look at this differently. I am trying to be rigorous about what I know and observe as opposed to what I assume or infer. It is like the burning candle experiment that they use to train scientific observation. It takes some discipline to record your observations of a burning candle without allowing assumptions, inferences or conclusions to creep in.

I am not including divinity into the definition of consciousness. I am instead avoiding an assumption of materialism in the definition. I experience consciousness so that is a fair observation. I have no evidence whatsoever about the fate of consciousness after death, so that is simply a statement of fact. If I include a definitive statement of the end of consciousness at death into the picture, then I have begun to build in an assumption of materialism without evidence.

This whole subject is explained completely in the last chapter of my book Poker Gaming and Life.

I don't get it, treating consciousness as a possession. Consider that there are "realms" of existence in which each calls forth their own particular form of conscious activity.

Man thinks/cognizes, feels and wills.

We, in our waking state , manifest a specific consciousness based upon our cognitive / thinking state which, of course, is directly related to our nervous system and sense bound activities. this activity is directly related to our "head" and is clearest in affect.

When Man "wills" we are within another realm to which our cognitional process falls short.If we furrow the earth the "head man" initiates a "picture" of what is to be accomplished but the movement between the "thought" and the action (furrow) is unknown. Pick up a glass from the table and the activity between the thought of the action and the action is not perceptible. This same realm of "willing" is present within the being of Man in his "digestive system". We are unable, within normal awakened conscious activity, to perceive this inner realm of Man. And so, the lower aspect of the human being can be called the metabolic/limb system which is in the non perceptible realm or the realm of "willing".

What the above relates to is the thinking/cognitional and metabolic/limb "realms" of differing consciousness.

Man thinks/cognizes and wills.

The third aspect of the human being is within the "feeling" aspect of his activities. Contrary to popular and force fed opinion this is not the nervous system but is contained within the chesty cavity with the confluence of the respiratory and blood systems. "Feelings" are definitely not as clear as thoughts as for there appears to be something missing, more a puzzlement. Relation to the middle system, of realm of "feelings" can be ascertained by observing the ratio of the respiratory rhythm to the blood system. In "feelings" Man is dreaming while awake. Man carries a respiratory rate of 18 breaths per minute versus a cardiac rate of 72 beats per minute. the ratio is approximately 4:1 but of course each individual carries his own rhythmic activity and in this the human being displays some living evidence of balance.

Disrupt the cardiac/respiratory balance or rhythm and we have pathology such as in an asthmatic.

Man carries within him these three realms of consciousness but they are not his normal awakened conscious activity but can be entered and have been entered, consciously so to speak, by individual men.

Thinking/cognition ,feeling and willing, a three fold nature of the human being who carries the cosmos within as without.

I note that some want "proof" but there cannot be a "sense" bound proof but the individual men who have attained other conscious activities in these other realms have developed the necessary "senses" (pointer here but certainly not physical senses) in order to enter these realms.

Referring to other threads here or in RGT , vis a vis Plato it could be said that Plato developed specific senses in order to enter the world of Platonic Ideas which in fact, modern man can enter, at the present time through his thinking. Going astray here but it leads to the fact that if the modern man can enter into the world of "non sense bound thinking" we are talking of a further realm of conscious activity.

Sorry, but there's much more, but comprehending that there are different "realms" of conscious activity as there are different continents on the earth and the world of "life after death and before the next life or return to earth" is cognizable by some and the "proof" is the ability to bring forth these thoughts within the structure of that very world, consciously to others is ths 'proof" for when folowing the thoughts of the "presenter" the "listener" is there within that realm.

I didn't do it well and by the way, for the religious, who want proof, what do you think happens when a person is promised the "Kingdom of God" or goes through an experience such as Lazarus , or Paul on the road to Damascus or the Young man of Nain?

Addition to above as it is better to see matters from different perspectives, as a road to understanding: this is from a post on RGT to the same topic.

The human being in sleep does not have "earth consciousness" and likewise through the realms after death. the human being also has "dream consciousness".

The "consciousness of deep sleep" can be garnered but only a few are able to appreciate this realm, consciously.

Earth consciousness (of course via the senses), dream consciousness which does not relate to the senses as we usually know them and deep sleep consciousness, all can be appreciated with the intellect but not necessarily experienced consciously(deep sleep) .

Speaking to "consciousness" as if it were a "thing" to be laid out on the
anatomist's table does not compute. There is a dynamic involved but of course, that consciousness most involved with the awakened human being can be studied if one attempts to study the "senses".

Almost lost in this, the sleeping human being is "alive" but not sensate as in your original premise., no need for zombies. Also there are other realms of consciousness but that's another story that I can only speak to peripherally.

The logic of the above gives the "earth consciousness" in relation to the brain only in the sense that the brain (nervous system) is a "reflector" of human experience. the brain does not produce thoughts as the gall bladder/liver produces bile.

Sounds like complete gibberish to me.