There are programs already that have adaptive subroutines. Of course, their basic programming stays the same, but so does ours. I cannot train my heart not to beat or my eyes not to see. These things are also "hard-programmed" into our mind.

When I am sitting at my computer, I am not quite conscious of myself thinking, nor am I quite conscious that my foot is resting on the floor, at least until I take notice of it. Nor am I quite aware of typing - I have become so used to expressing my thoughts through the keyboard that typing has become a very fluid way of expressing myThese things run in th thoughts. We have certain things that run in the background - what we're unconscious of - and other things that run in the foreground - what we are conscious of. Likewise, a computer may have processes in the background and foreground.

Lastly, one may imagine a computer program that is adaptive, that takes in hundreds of types of input, and reacts. Subroutines can be created that monitor these reactions and evaluate these reactions. Now, certain subroutines may be more important to the task that is being performed, where as other subroutines are secondary - such as minor maintenance of systems and information storage. This actually very similar to how human bodies work, so if a fairly simple program can be created to do something along these lines, perhaps our minds and bodies run a very sophisticated version of this program.

Finally, defining consciousness as awareness of thoughts or of everything around us is perhaps not the best definition.

As for being self-aware and animals...

Many animals seem to be self-aware. If we define animals to be self-aware, then they are conscious. And if they were not conscious, then they'd be unconscious. Well, we all know that animals don't go around "unconscious," so probably they are conscious on some level.
Notice, though, how in this self-awareness argument, I could replace "self-aware" here with "alive" and the argument would still make sense. This suggests that being self-aware is perhaps just one condition of being conscious, but not the defining condition.

Lastly, let me point out how I said that animals are probably conscious on some level. In this case, could we say that a very sophisticated artificial intelligence may also be conscious on some level? Also, could we say that any animal who evolves to be able to think and express ideas might reach *our* level of consciousness then. Thus, could we think that some *crazily* advanced AI robot may also reach our level of consciousness?

http://consc.net/online

I think you are confusing awareness with consciousness...

Consciousness requires self-awareness, however, simply having awareness does not constitute having consciousness.

To be aware of something is to have knowledge of it's existence... to know that "that" exists is to be aware of "that". In order to be aware of "that" the subject must possess the ability to perceive "that" and also to perceive the fact that "that" is separate from itself. This is displayed throughout the animal kingdom regarding predators and prey.

To have consciousness... one must know that it knows this.

There is also a necessary physiological framework that must be in place in order to facilitate the existence of consciousness.

Instinct can be aware, but it knows no consciousness... and it needs none. It has no sense of "self".

The word "consciousness" has different meanings for me, on different levels of actual awareness.

I disagree strongly with creative's statement that consciousness requires self awareness. That is a very high level form of consciousness and a shallow definition that only skims the surface of what it is in my opinion.

Its kind of the difference between a high level computer language and the machine language of zeros and ones.

Computer language has grown from zeros and ones and no computer screen, to window XP user friendly computer programs and a monitor, written in high level easy to learn languages for ordinary people.

On the low level of consciousness.. it is zero and one. That would be "to be or not to be."

It boils down to a zero or a one and grows from there.

At that level it is the ability to send out and receive vibrations. Sending out and receiving (feeling or observing) signals from other points of consciousness is a form of communication.

If said black hole or point is not sending out or receiving information (vibrations) it is in the condition of zero.

If said black hole or point is sending and receiving information (vibrations) then it is in the condition of one.

Consciousness is the movement and exchange of energy and information from units of thinking stuff.

The universe is all just energy and information and that exists in the form of vibrations sent and received within a certain frequency level.

Of course as all of this information manifests into sentient beings then the term "consciousness" takes on a different meaning according to people who can only read that high level language of form (matter and space and time.)

I would also disagree with that statement,

'... Consciousness requires self-awareness, however, simply having awareness does not constitute having consciousness...'

As stated, it subordinates 'consciousness' to 'self-awareness'. 'self-awareness' if anything, is THE short circuit 'par excellence' of any form of 'consciousness'.

Given that human beings are but 'self-aware': 'I think, therefore I am', is as far as humans go.

We can talk a good game 'ABOUT' consciousness,
... but accessing it ain't go'in to happen in this human form.

Our 'self-aware', mimicking neo/visual cortexes exclusive functions, can only generate 'pictures of the thing', and never the thing. All internal, all pretend external, and all self-referential.

'Concsciousness' is a perfect human paradox.

Self-awareness would somehow have to be turned off, to 'experience' (only through self-awareness) 'consciousness'.

While the disconnection of 'self-awareness' may not necessarily imply death per say, it certainly implies the end of that subtle connection between visual and neo cortexes which produce this 'self-aware' exclusive phenemenon.

Just to be clear: cutting this connection: coherence of neo-visual cortexes activities, kills all access to 'knowing' that we are aware at all (self-aware) or 'apparently' partially conscious at all (self-conscious).

We may create a powerful illusion of being conscious, but 'being conscious'!?!?!?

... Dream on !!!

Our fundamental human design is founded on self-awareness, and only on self-awareness, where no 'consciousness' can ever be accessed.

Evoking consciousness, free of self-awareness, is possible for humans. But that is far from 'being conscious', or 'having consciousness' (oxymoron) (Heidegger).

From my reading consciousness and awareness are the same thing.

An unconscious thought is a processes for which you are not aware.

A conscious thought is a processes for which you are aware.

You are unaware of your surroundings when you are asleep, unconscious.

It would take a pretty detailed argument to convince me these are not synonymous.

That has got to be one of the ugliest creatures I've ever seen.......AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Who's posting the pics of my ex-wife?

Yep.

Its also realizing that you are are still trapped in some kind of weird persistent illusion that won't go away and you can't remember where you came from in the first place.

It's a "Where the hell am I and how did I get here" kind of feeling, followed by a "How do I get outta here?"

soooo true... yet then again who's to say we really are conscious when we think we are...

Quite the babe 'TB' !!!

Why on earth would you have ever let her slip away, ... we shall never know!!!

I'm confused. The OP asked for a definition of consciousnous. I gave one:


Where in that definition does 'self-awarness' come into play?

An animal can be totally conscious, according to my definiation, without having a complex self schema.

So - to the OP, and to others,was this discussion supposed to be about self-awarness and perception of self, or about consciousness?

Di...

Consciousness... another of those multi-purpose terms...

Can your definition be fulfilled without being self-aware?

I find that consciousness and awareness are not the same thing. Animals can be aware via perception and respond via instinct without ever knowing that they are doing this.

They do not know that they are perceiving and responding, they just are.

To be aware that you perceive, think, and know is to have consciousness.


Voile...

Interesting approach! The metaphysical aspect is quite obvious. I wonder of this though. I understand that this is an attempt to equate consciousness to some higher level of functioning or existence, but what makes it(your approach) any different from any other faith?

I think that self-awareness is consciousness with all of it's constituents...

Well 'creative',

Close, except that where I write and think from, is the exact opposite!!!

I stated and state again that 'consciousness' is this human fabrication of the 'holy grail'!!! It is a concept of unaccessibility totally made up by the most imperfect 'self-thinking' machines we are, and no different from the 'god(s)' concept.

I don't seek that which I can't access. No faith required on my side (check out 'What's reality' on the GR forum).

On the other hand, substituting unconsciously, the 'god(s)' concept for the 'consciousness Holy Grail' concept, leaves you exactly in the same dogmatic spot; lots of faith required for those whom feel that they might be something other than circular 'self-conscious', 'self-aware' machines.

Seeking to define or reach the Holy Grail of Consciousness requires faith.
Devoting one's life to the sorting out of one's self-aware or self-conscious illusions, contradictions and delusions, would be anything and everything but based on faith!!!

(check out 'What's reality' (page 6 or 7), it might support a better understanding of the 'opposite' view you seem to shed here)

As you see many have different idealogies and knowledge on what they believe on the functions and definition of consciousness is for them personally.

If I may share another insight on the topic from those who follow Buddhism. Thank you.

Buddhist scripture holds that sensory perceptions, such as visual consciousness, are direct and not conceptual; a visual perception perceives a form, without however discerning between its good or bad, desirable or undesirable, aspects. The discernment takes place on a conceptual level, which constitutes a far more interpretative process than that of simple sensory perception.

As far as mental consciousness, the world of conceptual thought, is concerned, we distinguish different levels of subtlety, from the gross to the most subtle, well-documented in the tantric system. The brain, neurons, synapses, etc., are connected to consciousness, and this opens onto a vast terrain for investigation when we connect them with what tantric literature called energy (Tibetan: lung; Sanskrit: prana).

Research into the exact nature of the relation between the brain, consciousness, and energy proves to be very interesting.

When all the functions of the brain have stopped and physiological conditions have disappeared, it would seem that a form of the process of consciousness continues to exist.

This has been observed in the experience of certain realized lamas whose bodies, although declared clinically dead, do not decompose and remain fresh for several days or even several weeks.

At this stage, the Buddhist point of view maintains that the individual is not altogether dead, that he is continuing to evolve through the process of death, and that he remains in a state of subtle consciousness.

I think scientists ought to seek logical explanations for these cases when the body does not decompose even when the functions of the brain and the body have stopped.

Human beings can be concious but have no conscience. Where are you going with this?

Huh?

consciousness and conscience are not related.

I dont see where it does Di.

Awareness not self awareness was my point. Awareness is synonymous with being conscious was my point. I see no distinction. Perhaps I am missing something.



Creative your going to have to explain this one to me, perhaps some examples of what animals you are referring to, and perhaps how we know they are not self aware?

Also lets be clear, I think the idea of self awareness is different from and needs to be distinguished from just good old awareness.

An Example would help greatly. I very much like Di's definition perhaps using that definition would help us move closer to an understanding of each other, or perhaps first present your own definition then explain your previous comments in light of that definition. I apologize if you previously stated said definition.

I don't know about that. My dog went blind and after that he got pretty depressed. Bumping into walls, refusing to eat. He knew he had lost his sight.

Animals have emotions. My little dog tutor makes it very clear that he likes to run free and hates to be on a leash.
He knows how to let me know what he wants and does not want.

I agree, however I do not think creative was thinking of dogs when he said this. That was in part why I asked for an example to get a better idea of where his train of through was heading when he made this post.

Thanks again to everyone, great thread!