> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:13, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/11/2019 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:24, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Two recent books:
>>>> 
>>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>>>> 
>>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>>> Paul Thagard
>>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>>>> 
>>>> via
>>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>>> Paul Thagard
>>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>> 
>>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>>>> ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>>> ago (Reber).
>>>> 
>>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>>>> ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>>>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>>> around 560 million years ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>>>> 
>>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>>>> years ago (Julian Jaynes).
>>>> 
>>>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>>>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).
>>> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
>>> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
>>> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
>>> are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems clear 
>>> to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
>>> different times.
>> 
>> Are you OK that consciousness is, from the first person perspective, 
>> something which can be said to be
>> 
>> 1) true
> ?? Propositions are true (or false).


"Consciousness is true" from the first perspective is a manner to say that the 
proposition “I am conscious” is true for the first person I. 



>> 2) knowable
> I  think that distinguishes one level of consciousness: self-reflection, 
> perceiving that you are conscious. 

I would put the self-reflective level at the level of Löbianity. But it is the 
essence of consciousness of being a (not necessarily reflective) sort of 
knowledge. A worm knows when the acidity of its environment is bad for him, as 
it senses that immediately, but iit might know that it knows. Immediate 
knowledge requires the axiom t ([]p -> p). Self-awarenes asks for more, like 
the axiom “4” []p -> [][]p, which comes from believing in enough axiom of 
induction.




> But I doubt that spiders have self reflection. I suspect it appears in social 
> animals as an evolutionary adaptation, seeing yourself as others see you.

That is a complex question. The behaviour of spider shows that they do 
“induce”, which is not the case for insects, although there to, some new 
evidences added that some bees might induce too. It is of course hard to have 
any kind of certainties on this. When reading some news, I can even doubt that 
the human got it (but in the case of the human, it is more a problem of denying 
evidence for ideological, or greedy motivation).




> 
>> 2) non provable
> Proof is a relation between propositions mediated by rules of inference.

I identify a machine with its set of belief, or with its universal machine 
constitution. I limit myself to ideally correct machine, so what you say 
remains correct, but does not handicap the present (semi-axiomatic) definition 
of consciousness.





>> 3) indubitable
> Ok.

>> 4) non definable
> ?? When we talk about consciousness we rely on ostensive definition to 
> understand one another: "You know that feeling you get when you step on a 
> tack?”

Exactly. And an ostensive “definition" is required because consciousness, like 
truth, and like knowledge are not definable by the entity in question. But all 
Lôbian machine can define those things for simpler entities than they are. 
In my contest, a definition can use only “(“, “K”, “S”, “=“ and “)". (Or, s, 0, 
+, * “(“, “)” and the logical symbol).
All the terms aI am using are used in the sense of mathematical logic. 

If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only mechanism 
and the choice we might make for our substitution level.





>> 5) anticipable
>> 
>> If yes, then all universal machine is confronted with this, although only 
>> Löbian machine can assert this, with precaution.
>> 
>> Consciousness is not much more than the first person belief in some reality.
> It's a recognition that reality consists of "me and not-me”. 

Not, that is already self-consciousness. Babies, and worms can suffer (which 
requires consciousness) without any idea that there is a difference between 
them and reality. 

Here, I have to say that the reports of salvia experiences illustrates that we 
can get back to that state of consciousness, where indeed we are “very 
conscious”, and yet totally amnesic of any difference between oneself and 
reality. In fact, it is a completely egoless state, which some lives as 
blissful, and others lived it as the most frightening things they ever lived. I 
guess this is due to the fact that they identify themselves with the ego, and 
salvia illustrates that this is not the case. In a sense, “our” consciousness 
is not our’s. The ego filter a lot that sort of consciousness, probably for 
reason of surviving locally.




> But that is the most basic level. 

I don’t think so. “Me” and “NOT” are sophisticated concept. Little kids learn 
“not” with difficulties (doubly so if the parents always say “yes” or always 
say “no” to the kids.



> There is also the hypothesis of other minds and of other's view of yourself.  
> There is consciousness of one's place and in time and history; which probably 
> requires language.

Yes, all that supposes the self-reflection ability, that is the axiom “4” of 
modal logic: []p -> [][]p. As “[]” is just Gödel’s “beweisbar” provability 
predicate, RA lacks it, but PA got it. RA has the “worm” consciousness, and PA 
has the human type of consciousness, which might begin with spider and 
cuttlefish, but is more obvious for higher mammals and humans.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> It accelerates the learning of distinguishing prey and predators for the 
>> self-moving self-eating types of creatures.
>> 
>> There are many possible experience of consciousness, and even sorts of state 
>> of consciousness, from highly dissociative, with or without amnesia, to many 
>> mundane state, like each of us at all instant of our normal waking life. It 
>> makes easy to get new beliefs and to abandon ancient beliefs. When Löbian, 
>> it generates “fear” (the local expectation of local unsatisfiabilty 
>> condition).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to