3 ms·

I propose a thought : If, as the sciences would have us believe, consciousness is born out of the unique biological structuring of matter in that jelly atop yo

I propose a thought : If, as the sciences would have us believe, consciousness is born out of the unique biological structuring of matter in that jelly atop your shoulders, would it not seem logical that there are varied degrees of consciousness formed among us? Magnify a blade of grass to its 'simplest' form and you'll see incongruency ? Then why not across the landscape of human consciousness formed by even more complex structuring ? and then what....

gipp 11y ago
There's nothing about the idea of physical consciousness that says it has to be a continuum -- there could just be some critical mass or qualitative attribute of brains that puts us "over the threshold", so to speak. Nobody can give any kind of a definitive answer. For ideas about a "continuum" of consciousness, you might read Phi: http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul-ebook/dp/B0078XCPQY http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul-ebook/dp/B0078... Or for other views, you might check out V.S Ramachandran (neuroscience): http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Impostor/dp/0131872788 http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Imposto... Jeff Hawkins (computer science): http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/0805078533 http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/080507... Hofstadter (mathematics, cognitive science): http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567 http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/... Those are some of my favorite popular-press books on the subject.
- astrocyte 11y ago
  * Read Jeff Hawkins (On intelligence) * Have GEB (Covered enough of it) My point was to bring out the implicit belief that there is : > Some critical mass or qualitative attribute of brains that puts us "over the threshold" > If consciousness is indeed a variable quantity, then every single able bodied adult human has more "units" of consciousness than, say, a dog. > The variation within a species is also probably pretty small compared to the gap between species. None of which are proven in any scientific way yet many believe it to be the truth. We haven't even resolved what consciousness let alone its range of existence. > Just like intelligence, the amount of consciousness that a person has is not a measure of their value. And yet, one draws lines to distinguish human intelligence/consciousness from that say of a dog.
bweitzman 11y ago
I don't think it's an unreasonable thought at all, but I think there are a few very import things to considers: * If consciousness is indeed a variable quantity, then every single able bodied adult human has more "units" of consciousness than, say, a dog. The variation within a species is also probably pretty small compared to the gap between species. * Just like intelligence, the amount of consciousness that a person has is not a measure of their value.
- astrocyte 11y ago
  > Statement #1 is pointless w/o first defining what consciousness is. We don't know what it is and yet, via our own limited and vivid perspective, we speak as though we do. > Nothing is a measure of value if you really want to extend that. You'd have to understand a larger portion of the Universe and system to begin speaking in these terms. In any event, it's important sometimes to highlight the gaping holes in core views people carry on with. The gradient of consciousness between one human being and another could be as relatively vast as the one between ourselves and a newt and there is no scientifically grounded argument against it until you define what consciousness is.

gipp 11y ago

There's nothing about the idea of physical consciousness that says it has to be a continuum -- there could just be some critical mass or qualitative attribute of brains that puts us "over the threshold", so to speak. Nobody can give any kind of a definitive answer. For ideas about a "continuum" of consciousness, you might read Phi: http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul-ebook/dp/B0078XCPQY http://www.amazon.com/Phi-A-Voyage-Brain-Soul-ebook/dp/B0078... Or for other views, you might check out V.S Ramachandran (neuroscience): http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Impostor/dp/0131872788 http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Imposto... Jeff Hawkins (computer science): http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/0805078533 http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/080507... Hofstadter (mathematics, cognitive science): http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567 http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/... Those are some of my favorite popular-press books on the subject.

astrocyte 11y ago
* Read Jeff Hawkins (On intelligence) * Have GEB (Covered enough of it) My point was to bring out the implicit belief that there is : > Some critical mass or qualitative attribute of brains that puts us "over the threshold" > If consciousness is indeed a variable quantity, then every single able bodied adult human has more "units" of consciousness than, say, a dog. > The variation within a species is also probably pretty small compared to the gap between species. None of which are proven in any scientific way yet many believe it to be the truth. We haven't even resolved what consciousness let alone its range of existence. > Just like intelligence, the amount of consciousness that a person has is not a measure of their value. And yet, one draws lines to distinguish human intelligence/consciousness from that say of a dog.

bweitzman 11y ago

I don't think it's an unreasonable thought at all, but I think there are a few very import things to considers: * If consciousness is indeed a variable quantity, then every single able bodied adult human has more "units" of consciousness than, say, a dog. The variation within a species is also probably pretty small compared to the gap between species. * Just like intelligence, the amount of consciousness that a person has is not a measure of their value.

astrocyte 11y ago
> Statement #1 is pointless w/o first defining what consciousness is. We don't know what it is and yet, via our own limited and vivid perspective, we speak as though we do. > Nothing is a measure of value if you really want to extend that. You'd have to understand a larger portion of the Universe and system to begin speaking in these terms. In any event, it's important sometimes to highlight the gaping holes in core views people carry on with. The gradient of consciousness between one human being and another could be as relatively vast as the one between ourselves and a newt and there is no scientifically grounded argument against it until you define what consciousness is.