Adding your reply:
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
| |
|
|
Sign up for FREEA free allpoetry.com account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?Advertising |
|
Logout
Help
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design | |
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
June 13, 2007
Edit | Reply
hell no!
awareness has to come from conscience discernment and edification, neither of which could ever be programmed. thats one of the things that makes people different from machines.Weydon
June 13, 2007
Edit | Reply
Makessenseright
June 14, 2007
From the book Dune
Kazrith
June 14, 2007
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
June 19, 2007
Edit | Reply
To me consciousness is pure qualia. Without it (in-and-of-itself) a system remains the same. You don't need to manufacture consciousness, only articulate it (in all totality). It will have the direct appearance of a conscious being unbeknown to the external world as pure replication of an infinitely complex unit (humans).
It depends entirely on the value we place on the human condition.
Molzahn
June 20, 2007
Edit | Reply
are we sure consciousness is exclusive to experience?
"It is the relationship between this operator and the various other functions of the brain that enable us to analyze and use the experience in cohesion."
From a purely analytical standpoint, this is true. but what of an incoherent existance? like, a deep well that our conscious minds cannot draw upon, nor have the ability to, because that state of being can not be assimilated or translated fully by its logical counterpart. consciousness exists in a dream surely.
"You don't need to manufact consciousness, only articulate it"
is that to say, the robot is an object which consciousness can be expressed? how can we know if consciousness is reached unless through our own consciousness than? - if so, you could say this could just be another question relating to empathy. perhaps consciousness only exists in others as we allow it to.
TeChNoWC
June 21, 2007
Edit | Reply
It would be some sort of paradoxical, simplistic awareness without an awareness of its own. It cannot function but simply maintain stationary awareness.
Are we still considering that we have input in this system (senses)?
Because, if not, I would consider that consciousness, in-and-of-itself, would simply represent itself as nothing. To me, consciousness is irrational. I cannot comprehend my own awareness, so naturally, I doubt(ed).
"is that to say, the robot is an object which consciousness can be expressed? how can we know if consciousness is reached unless through our own consciousness than? - if so, you could say this could just be another question relating to empathy. perhaps consciousness only exists in others as we allow it to."
You can never identify other consciousness, within a worldbound means, other than assuming it from relating similar external reactants to your own. Yes, this is intrinsic to empathy - and in such is an allowance of significant relation between one's consciousness to anothers, a (from our perspective) comprehension of anothers.
When it comes to robots, we have a concept of what consciousness is. We would assume the properties of the robot based on what the manufacturers tell us, but as fiction shows empathy may draw us elsewhere. We empathize for complex systems that model us, as that is exactly what other people are - and as the properties tied to your consciousness are present in both complex human and complex robot, you have little to distinguish when it comes to emotional empathy for both - depending on how complex the robot gets.
Complex system does not necessarily invoke consciousness. Biology suggests that complex systems do have consciousness, but to claim this as given is naive.
Our perspective will guide our emotions, thoughts and actions. Yet, from a scientific point of view, if we assumed (rather stupidly) that we knew others around us were conscious, then it still stands that robots could be made to replicate a conscious entity, and have no need for it.
Molzahn
June 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
a stupid assumption? -nay
we as an 'individual' consciousness, are infact composed of an orchestra of conscious elements. Because these components can channel eachother (close knit empathic bonds), it recognizes itself as a collective identity (you).This should therefore be on the same lines as a group of people, a loved one, a family member. we are prodominantly aware of our own consciousness, but the recognition of another's awareness comes when we can channel portions of their persona, and they of ours. There are entire studies of psychology and sociology dedicated to collective consciousness in societies and groups.
- the observation of consciousness seems no different than that of time or motion. You cannot calculate the actual presence of such energy, only the effects it has on the tangible matter it is be channeled by. Consciousness seems to be like this; without its manifestations it cannot be detected or rationally confirmed. -and thus, our rational understanding is limited by this.
the orchestra seems a fitting metaphor for consciousness - through harmony (empathy) a greater melody (consciousness) can be born. the flow of empathy seems to be consciousness. As the guitarist and pianist can draw from eachother in a piece, giving it life - the harmonous flux of interactive mental components will seemingly find this same lifeforce.
TeChNoWC
June 23, 2007
Edit | Reply
Interesting. Would it then be possible to identify a sort of 'singular consciousness' (one individual element) or is consciousness only ever a composite system (in theory)?
"This should therefore be on the same lines as a group of people, a loved one, a family member. we are prodominantly aware of our own consciousness, but the recognition of another's awareness comes when we can channel portions of their persona, and they of ours. There are entire studies of psychology and sociology dedicated to collective consciousness in societies and groups."
It does not take consciousness, self-awareness or even other-awareness to actualize another's behaviour. It can be simply intrinsic to the unconscious mind. The mind learns to imitate. I sometimes find myself adapting to and imitating another's behaviour (to a degree) yet I am only aware of it after the fact, if at all. Accents are the same. They are automated responses to the environment and community that we grow up in - automatic adaptation.
"- the observation of consciousness seems no different than that of time or motion. You cannot calculate the actual presence of such energy, only the effects it has on the tangible matter it is be channeled by. Consciousness seems to be like this; without its manifestations it cannot be detected or rationally confirmed. -and thus, our rational understanding is limited by this."
It is my conviction that consciousness has no identifiable impact in the world around us. If consciousness were to be imitated (say, in a robot) it is these manifestations that are being replicated and not the essence of consciousness itself. Thus, the essence of consciousness is not even identifiable by its manifestations, because these manifestations could simply purport a complex system.
I suggest reading up on a topic of mine, Epiphenomenalism. It contains an in-depth debate (I'm sure Weydon will remember this one) on a particular dualistic ideation of consciousness.
"the orchestra seems a fitting metaphor for consciousness - through harmony (empathy) a greater melody (consciousness) can be born. the flow of empathy seems to be consciousness. As the guitarist and pianist can draw from eachother in a piece, giving it life - the harmonous flux of interactive mental components will seemingly find this same lifeforce."
Is this a mystical perversion, can you explain further please?
Molzahn
June 27, 2007
experimental lobotomies have been preformed showing the two lobes of the brain can function independantly of eachother with their adjoining perifery. for instance, the split 'person' of the right lobe could see out of the left sides of his eyes, and use his left hand etc (but all function of the left sides was not in his control), they discovered that some of the function typical of the left (logical) domain had been intergraded to right (abstract) - if i can remember properly it was the abilities such as to read or write. - both sides demonstrated a deficient ability to proform activities requiring the other sides set of function.
- infact any instance/study of brain damage would be an appropriate example
"It does not take consciousness, self-awareness or even other-awareness to actualize another's behaviour. It can be simply intrinsic to the unconscious mind. The mind learns to imitate. I sometimes find myself adapting to and imitating another's behaviour (to a degree) yet I am only aware of it after the fact, if at all. Accents are the same. They are automated responses to the environment and community that we grow up in - automatic adaptation."
yes, every interaction changes us, just as every pebble in the stream will affect its current.
"It is my conviction that consciousness has no identifiable impact in the world around us. If consciousness were to be imitated (say, in a robot) it is these manifestations that are being replicated and not the essence of consciousness itself. Thus, the essence of consciousness is not even identifiable by its manifestations, because these manifestations could simply purport a complex system." (I take it we are in agreement?)
by virtue of its irrationality, consciousness IS inidententifiable. like i compared before, the nature of energy beyond its manifestation IS ambiguous. you can only measure the logical interference of a quasi-logical phenomenon. In the universe of logic, consciousness does not exist - that does not dispute its existance separate of the patterned realm.
TeChNoWC
July 12, 2007
Edit | Reply
- infact any instance/study of brain damage would be an appropriate example"
Very interesting, I shall look into it.
"yes, every interaction changes us, just as every pebble in the stream will affect its current."
My argument was that consciousness plays little part in this pebble effect, and is not necessary to identify external effectuals with a group consciousness as consciousness is not motivated by or intrinsic to effectuals.
"by virtue of its irrationality, consciousness IS inidententifiable. like i compared before, the nature of energy beyond its manifestation IS ambiguous. you can only measure the logical interference of a quasi-logical phenomenon. In the universe of logic, consciousness does not exist - that does not dispute its existance separate of the patterned realm."
I thought you considered any realm as patterned. You even attempted to, in our first debate, concern our view of God entirely with the relativity of one thing to another and how observation and perception becomes aware of things only as they relate to other things. If consciousness plays no part in the patterned realm yet is still irrationally identifiable to us, then it serves as an example of a higher conceptual 'modus' that is apriori to relativity and patterned observation, independent of all its interconnecting apparents, much like a transcendent/paradoxically-relational God.
Molzahn
July 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
But one could argue that the exterior world is an extention of consciousness.
"I thought you considered any realm as patterned. You even attempted to, in our first debate, concern our view of God entirely with the relativity of one thing to another and how observation and perception becomes aware of things only as they relate to other things. If consciousness plays no part in the patterned realm yet is still irrationally identifiable to us, then it serves as an example of a higher conceptual 'modus' that is apriori to relativity and patterned observation, independent of all its interconnecting apparents, much like a transcendent/paradoxically-relational God."
By virtue of a 'realm' being an assimilatable conceptual item, it would be patterned. and according to the universe of logic, the only the quantifiable 'things' exist. according to the universe of logic, logic is the only universe which exists (I'll expand on this some more later). yes, i do believe there is that ineffably indescribable, inconceptual element which exists beyond pattern and order. Some call it magick, some call it god, some call it fate, some call it blah blah blah. the point of the matter is, if you were to touch upon this 'power', it cannot manifest into purely. I'm in a hurry typing this, but my point is that the moment you incorperate this "beyond" into a reference, it no longer is of itself.. if that makes sense at all
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free