Brent,

 

First, the point of the blog is that people mean different things by the concept. It is important to be conscious of that fact 😊.

 

Second, I was very clear that I did not think that functional awareness and responsivity is a good definition. I think consciousness should refer to the subjective experience of being, which all the conversations I have had with John and all the writings I referred to make clear.

 

Third, your claim that “Each of those pieces of information must be something which has intrinsic qualities” is a physicalist interpretation of Representational Qualia theory that could be correct but may well be wrong. I thought we clarified that point when we had our zoom call.

Best,
Gregg

 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Brent Allsop
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 12:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Three Meanings of Consciousness

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

---

Hi Gregg,

Here are a bunch of problems with these 3 definitions, especially compared to the comprehensive not at all difficult, definition provided in the Representational Qualia Theory Consensus camp.

 

1.    You are not taking into account what is theoretically possible, and what is going to be possible during the next 100 years.  For example, it is theoretically possible to have a near infinite size state/lookup table for behavior, abstract robot, which could act more conscious that any conscious being, yet should not be considered conscious.  And surely, in the next 10 years we will have abstract robots that will easily behave as if it is conscious.

2.    “Functional Awareness and responsivity” would define a robot, behaving more conscious than the dog “Binji” as being conscious, which is completely wrong.  It would define all 3 of these robots (especially if they were designed to do more than just pick strawberries) as conscious.  And it would not define a conscious thermostat (the minimum required to be conscious in the RQT definition) as being conscious.

3.    The second “Subjective conscious experience” definition is a little better, but the way you are describing it is very problematic. This kind of consciousness can only be seen "from the inside"’ is just very bad usage of the very bad “Homunculus” idea.  There is not something in the brain that can “see” consciousness.  There are two ways of gaining knowledge about reality.  You can “see” it from afar, with eyes, and you can “directly apprehend” intrinsic qualities, of which conscious knowledge is composed.  See the table 5 minutes into the Distinguishing Reality from knowleege chapter.

4.    The 3^rd “self-conscious” definition would define a tesla automobile, which is aware of itself, in it's surroundings, as being conscious, especially if you gave it some primitive self-reflecting abilities.  For example, it could be programmed to answer self-reflective questions like: “What color are you?”  It’s knowledge of it’s color, would just be the abstract word ‘red’, there would not be computationally bound redness anywhere.

 

Any studying of the “evolution of subjective experience” is completely missing the point that a thermostat life could be conscious, including some of the first life on earth, while a much more complex animal, may be entirely abstract, or so radically different from phenomenal consciousness, that we would never consider such to be conscious, even though it may be behaving in highly intelligent ways.

 

The bottom line is, our consciousness is composed of LOTS of pieces of information (like every pixel on the surface of a strawberry.  1. Each of those pieces of information must be something which has intrinsic qualities.  2.  Whatever those things are, they must be able to be “computationally bound” with all the other pieces of knowledge of which our conscious awareness is composed.  If not, it is sub conscious.

 

Simple easy and complete definition of consciousness: “Computationally bound elemental intrinsic qualities like redness and greenness.”

 

 

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:30 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Folks,

  I put this blog up today explaining how we should divide the meaning of consciousness up into (a) functional awareness and responsivity; (b) subjective experience of being and (c) explicit self-conscious reflection.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202104/three-basic-meanings-consciousness

 

Best,
G

 

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)

Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:

https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1