Ghibsa and honored discussioneers: you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long as you cannot identify it. Attribute of "a 1st person"? that would leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st person.
When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I found that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes. Around 'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence of THOSE opinions into some more and more general understanding just to arrive at my DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed to') - streamlined since then into:------- Response to relations. ------------ Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well. (That also changed my "observer" into ANYTHING reacting to -well - relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric charge, or a stone rolling down a slope. What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of the anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN reactivity and effect. We are not NATURE, nor do we direct Her changes in every respect. We are consequence. Of more - much much more than we know about (what I call our 'inventory'). Computation (cum+putare) is definitely a human way and the quantitative side of it is "math" (IMO). No matter if the facts underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose with/after them. So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?) of which we are a tiny part only. There are "relations" (everybody may identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our knowledge. I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site for it (definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours). Just as I claim agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the "bio" or wider Earthbound, not even carried on 'physical' material substrate. Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no answer, but SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What I enjoyed was the 2D mentioned by Liz as the database. Best regards John Mikes On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? > If its exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about > motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass > > Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be > precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong > evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they > begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until > all the REM is made up for) > i > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to > specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is > this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has > already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as > a rest'. > ion > If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in the > vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting > goes on? Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant > computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a > piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of > the code? What decides what object and experiences what consciousness, > and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes > wake up him? > > If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness > experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, > which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are > required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience > is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? > > Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and > given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be > precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to > include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its > footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can > we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly > of that code? > , > Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past > 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been > done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts > to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into > existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the > Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why > hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
