Jan Bogaerts - Mar 31, 2011:

though I’d have to agree that it’s not the same as ours, or that of other ‘higher’ mammals.

To aid your point, I think there are ‘levels of consciousness’, both in that our own level can fluctuate or differ, and that other entities can have other ‘levels of consciousness’.

That would make sense.

A system that uses information about its current state, as well as environmental information and static information, to influence its current state. The current state information must be accessable to the system in the same or similar manner as other information. So must the information that the system has access to such current state information about itself.

If you think about it, we have a rather similar def, but with some differences in view point. You open up by using ‘system’, I close down with ‘NN’. I focus more on the result, while you focus on info use.

C R Hunt - Mar 31, 2011:

It seems the only thing humans can agree on is that we all have them!

Yep, but at least that should count for something.

C R Hunt - Mar 31, 2011:

Okay, here’s mine…

A system that uses information about its current state, as well as environmental information and static information, to influence its current state. The current state information must be accessable to the system in the same or similar manner as other information. So must the information that the system has access to such current state information about itself.

I would argue that by your definition here, my car has consciousness as well.

My car:
- uses information about it’s current state; several sensors tell it how to operate.
- uses environmental information; it measures air density, humidity, etc. to tune it’s own performance.
- uses statis information; it has quite some data build in to define it’s proper operation.
- it influences it’s current state; again tunes it’s own performance.
- current state accessible to the system in same manner; all information my car can access is being accessed in the same manner (ECU data access, sensors).

I’ll suggest another definition:

- A system that is aware of it’s own awareness.

I was coming to a similar conclusion Hans.

If you were to shorten it, you could put: a system that produces a result. But by that definition, my oven has consciousness. Now, that might one day be, but mine has 3 turn buttons, a heater element and a thermostat, not much more.

So perhaps, we’re stuck with a self referencing definition.

Hans Peter Willems - Mar 31, 2011:

C R Hunt - Mar 31, 2011:

Okay, here’s mine…

A system that uses information about its current state, as well as environmental information and static information, to influence its current state. The current state information must be accessable to the system in the same or similar manner as other information. So must the information that the system has access to such current state information about itself.

I would argue that by your definition here, my car has consciousness as well.

But the car does not have the last “requirement”, the information that it has information about itself. There is no system of information storage in the car that stores let alone makes use of this fact.

Perhaps that’s the source of consciousness after all. Hmm…

But the car does not have the last “requirement”, the information that it has information about itself. There is no system of information storage in the car that stores let alone makes use of this fact.

I used to design test systems for cars and I can assure you a car has a lot of information about itself. It has many systems (when I left, it was aroun 50, and doubling every generation) in place to track these things. Think about breaks, engine, lights and stuff.

Jan Bogaerts - Mar 31, 2011:

I used to design test systems for cars and I can assure you a car has a lot of information about itself.

You beat me to it Jan, I was going to say something to that effect. Modern ECUs are pretty powerful computers that store a lot of information about what is going on.

But we could also turn this argument around; how far removed from ‘consciousness’ is a modern car ? I can surely see cars being implemented in the future with at least some sort of AI, for example to prevent accidents.

Jan Bogaerts - Mar 31, 2011:

Jan: What about animals? Certainly there are creatures with neural activity that don’t also possess consciousness..?

Let me put it to you this way: I stopped (or at least am trying to stop) killing flies. Though I must admit, it seems to be a reflex hard to surpres (my speller can’t seem to correct this).

Yes, I understand. I am a vegetarian for humanitarian reasons. (I don’t think it’s wrong per se to eat animals, just that current big meat industry practices are too inhumane and hypocritical, considering the laws in place to protect dogs and other “pet” animals.)

That said, cows are really stupid. I mean stupendously dumb. While I don’t doubt their ability to feel pain and respond to environmental cues, I don’t think their level of consciousness is terribly high. But I guess that’s the core of it: certain systems may have access to more or less information about their current state and the fact that they have one, and may use such information more or less to alter said state.

Social animals definitely have some higher form of conscousness. You must be somewhat aware of the fact that you have a current state in order to understand and use the fact that those around you do as well. (Theory of mind and all that.)

Yes, I understand. I am a vegetarian for humanitarian reasons. (I don’t think it’s wrong per se to eat animals, just that current big meat industry practices are too inhumane and hypocritical, considering the laws in place to protect dogs and other “pet” animals.)

Ahh, food. That’s a whole different story all together. First, let me state that I have excepted the fact that I am mostly a carnivore (I come from a people who like to eat frogs, rats and horses,.. that should say something). On the other hand, I need to stick to a pretty fucked up diet, so I’m basically a veggie 1/2 a week, the other half would probably add up to about 150/200 grams. Though, if ever I had the change again, I’d first eat the whole lot and feel guilty afterwards.

Social animals definitely have some higher form of conscousness. You must be somewhat aware of the fact that you have a current state in order to understand and use the fact that those around you do as well. (Theory of mind and all that.)

It does seem to be the case in mammals (you know, the ‘furry ones’). Would it also be the case in the insect world? Are bees more socially adept then a common fly?

Hans Peter Willems - Mar 31, 2011:

I’ll suggest another definition:

- A system that is aware of it’s own awareness.

That sounds like a rhetorical recursion!

Also, what is the lowest “level” that consciousness can exist?

Human
- No doubt, but by our (human) own definition
Mammal
- No doubt (in my mind at least)
Animal
- No doubt (I have met some very intelligent parrots!)
Plant
- This is what it gets fuzzy for me, may be they can be, but by their definition of consciousness that currently alludes our senses.
Mineral (silicon!)
- Seems reasonable that they could, a computer with consciousness!  But that is similar to saying a piece of granite can have consciousness?!  Maybe there is just a perception barrier that makes the “obvious” opaque at the moment.

Carl B - Mar 31, 2011:

Hans Peter Willems - Mar 31, 2011:

I’ll suggest another definition:

- A system that is aware of it’s own awareness.

That sounds like a rhetorical recursion!

It isn’t, it’s a feedback loop (I actually DO believe that a ‘feedback loop’ is the paramount ingredient for attaining consciousness).

Define consciousness… declarative ? in other terms?

*ERROR*  *DIVISION BY ZERO*

Can’t do that.  I think you can only give an example of an entity being conscious.  Or give its functional abilities. 

That’s my short reply . .very busy right now, but was too tempted to not give any reply . .. more to following this evening.  Also looking forward to reading everyone’s replies!!

OK… What a day, exceedingly busy.  But, home now . . so here’s my take folks :

Consciousness , as I stated above, to me, probably is best (and perhaps only) described by a function, and action.

That action :  CORRELATING, or INTEGRATING.

We have an endless stream of physical impulses reaching our brain.  The 5 senses.  At every moment in time, we are receiving these events.  Our minds correlate or integrate these sequences of impulses in time, and our minds realize how they fit together, converting those sequences into semantic meaning.

Now a system can also demonstrate consciousness during communication with another conscious being.  During a conversation, the system can correlate the meanings of the symbols exchanged, with their lower level (subjective experience mentioned above), and respond based on that correlation.

I think a good example would be : 

  your chatbot is running on a desktop computer (with no UPS) , and , while talking to it, you say “The power will be going off within the hour, and be off for the next 12 hours”

Now, the chatbot responds with “oh my god… I will be effectively “dead” during that time… is a copy of me running on your laptop?  at least that we, I can still be online and chatting with you?  Do you want to check now please, I’m worried”

You’d respond.. .“yeah .. I think a copy is on the laptop, don’t worry about it”...  So then the chatbot, tries to figure out how to run the SCP (unix scp command), and plans writing a BASH script to copy all its files to the laptop since it sensed this uncertainty.    the chat bot responds “I don’t think you really care about me?”

See how easy it is to explain this stuff via an example?

This is a good example for many reasons.

First, the chatbot was AWARE of the fact that it was running on a desktop.  Perhaps it even hooked into the power API of the O/S and determined there was no UPS.

Based on this knowledge of where it was running, and the situation (the fact that the power was to be turned off), it CORRELATED that with the expected consequence.  The consequence was undesirable (it being shut down, or effectively “dead”).

So I think a good functional definition goes a long way—with a good example.

Now, I realize there is functional definition and then there is also “Qualia”  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia ).

I really believe that a digital computer will not and cannot possibly have the same Qualia as a human being, simply because we are made of different materials.

However, I think it is possible for a computer to have its own Qualia.  All kinds of analog peripherals could be connected to the system to give it this qualia information.

It will be interesting, a future Strong AI could develop its own language (call it SAIL for short, strong ai language), and there would be word “XYZ” , and while the AI would be talking to a human , lets say in English, and it would use the SAIL word “XYZ”, the human would ask ...  “I don’t know the word XYZ?, what is that?”  the bot would reply “Oh, I’m sorry, XYZ is a SAIL word meaning .. . . .. um . . sorry. . I can’t find an English translation!!”  Since it would be a word that strong AI’s use to communicate a conscious experience they share, and that we humans don’t , and thus don’t have a word for.