4 ms·
Are thoughts necessary to consciousness? One can be consciousness yet not be possessed of any thoughts. Thoughts in a human's biological apparatus are essentia
by alfredallan1 8y ago
Are thoughts necessary to consciousness? One can be consciousness yet not be possessed of any thoughts.
Thoughts in a human's biological apparatus are essentially neurons firing off in the brain, e.g. replaying an incident stored in memory. A computer can do much the same thing, with different apparatus of course, yet it’d not be considered conscious. Not that it couldn’t be (it could well be possible for a lifeform to be constructed of circuitry, it just isn’t (yet) known if or how), just that it wouldn’t be.
If the above is indeed true, it’d be inferred that consciousness is of the nature of consciousness itself. If the abstract notion of thinking can be reified either in a human (biological) form or an electronic form, it stands to reason that the only thing different between the two must be that which distinguishes the human from the machine, i.e. consciousness.
Thus, in the paradigm of “thought” in this discussion, all consciousness is, is the awareness of the process of thinking, or of the thoughts as they come and go. Because a thought cannot be considered to be aware of itself, it can only be the object of awareness, the subject being the consciousness manifested in said human. The same reasoning applies to paradigms other than “thought”, e.g. “experience”.
A computer with sensors can detect itself falling to the floor, as can a human with their senses. An appropriately programmed computer can even take preventive action (e.g. some hard disks disconnecting/parking the head) as can a human, by virtue of their instincts/memories. But a computer would not be considered to be conscious of the fall. Only an entity in possession of consciousness can be considered to truly experience things. So neither thoughts nor senses are determinants of consciousness. Nor are they of the nature of consciousness. Only consciousness is of the nature of consciousness, everything else is a simulation thereof.
It is a coincidence (or part of a grand design, for the theologically inclined) that the particular configuration of matter in a human supports the manifestation of consciousness. It is questionable if all life forms are indeed capable of consciousness. Equally questionable if there can exist varying levels of manifestation of consciousness. Plants, presumably would be at the lower end.
- goldenkey 8y agoSelf awareness is not a prerequisite for consciousness..even awareness goes away on strong psychadelics. I think computation and thought are pretty much the same. Every computation requires consciousness to be performed..an observer.
- alfredallan1 8y agoAwareness doesn’t exactly go away on strong psychedelics. If it did, how’d one be able to make the recollection of strange things happening. There’s some primal level of awareness remanining to observe that the majority of the motor and cognitive functions are impaired. How else would one be able to “remember” that one was indeed “unaware”? Being aware (after the event) of having been unaware (under the influence) indicates there was some lingering awareness remaining.
- goldenkey 8y agoIf any system that retains memory of downsampled inputs has consciousness, then consciousness must be caused by calculation plus memory. This makes a lot of sense.
- alfredallan1 8y agoYes, it makes sense, kinda. What doesn’t make sense is a computer also has calculation + memory. So is the computer conscious? If the answer is yes, then okay, computers are conscious and the only reason they don’t feel pain (etc.) is the lack of appropirate sensors and the lack of programming to process the input from those sensors. If the answer is no, then consciousness must be something separate from both calculation and memory. I think human bias will play a large role in whether one answer yes or no above.