Why is there this subjective consciousness

[average]

Why couldn't there just be the same world with the same people, all acting in the same way, and functionally equivalent to what you are now, but without the actual first person subjective experience?
Since everything would follow cause and effect, determinism, people could act 'as if' they had subjective experiences, without actually having them. People would react in the exact same way a ball reacts when it is bounced.
Isn't this what we would expect in a fully deterministic world, so why is there this phenomena of actual subjective experiencing? Why isn't the world just full of zombies, people, acting and reacting like dominoes, how come they must feel and experience at all...

[Lykaios]

I've thought about this before, and I don't quite know, but I'm tempted to say that consciousness is really just intelligence - zombies might not be able to act and react intelligence without consciousness if consciousness implies or is equivalent to intelligence.

"...studies did not include a focus on intelligence but pilot data suggest that the IQ of the subjects in these studies may interact with main effects of drug or cognitive condition. We are now pursuing this possibility. For example, we are designing functional imaging studies to address questions such as, are intelligent people more conscious than others and does the neuro-circuitry of consciousness, as revealed by studies of anesthetic drugs, overlap with the neurocircuitry of intelligence?..."

...That is, to be more human means to be more conscious which depends on higher intelligence. Understanding this, we can then place varying levels of human value on varying levels of humanness. This refocuses the abortion issue, human rights issues, and numerous other value laden decisions on a definition of human life that is contingent on intelligence.

[Carl G]

Why isn't the world just full of zombies, people, acting and reacting like dominoes,

It is full of zombies. The fact that they do have subjective experiences does not make them any less automaton.

[Tomas]

.


-the honkey-
average - Why couldn't there just be the same world with the same people, all acting in the same way, and functionally equivalent to what you are now, but without the actual first person subjective experience?

-tomas-
Then, we'd all be genius.




-the honkey-
Since everything would follow cause and effect, determinism, people could act 'as if' they had subjective experiences, without actually having them.

-tomas-
That would make for a poor sex life :-(




-the honkey-
People would react in the exact same way a ball reacts when it is bounced.

-tomas-
No rules?




-the honkey-
Isn't this what we would expect in a fully deterministic world, so why is there this phenomena of actual subjective experiencing?

-tomas-
The beginning is the means to the end.



-the honkey-
Why isn't the world just full of zombies, people, acting and reacting like dominoes, how come they must feel and experience at all...

-tomas-
Diversity of opinion is what brought you here to this QRS forum. Run with it!



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971



.

[David Quinn]

Consciousness facilitates learning and adapting, and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to complex situations. It is our primary tool for evolutionary survival, as opposed to the claws and fangs of a lion or the speed of a gazelle.

Without consciousness, our behaviour patterns would become rigid and we would no longer be able to adapt to change. We would be in danger of becoming extinct.

Such is the ways of cause and effect.

-

[average]

But things can be operationally equivalent without experiencing anything they are doing.
A lion (as far as I'm concerned) still has first person subjective experiences. So a lion and a person aren't really different in this sense.

Things like bacteria, can learn and adapt and function but they aren't aware (i think) of what they are doing, why aren't we just like robots without any experience of what we do?

we could carry out each and every action, without any first person subjective experience of what is happening.
like there could be pain receptors, and signals telling the brain to pull an arm back, but just automatically -- without anyone there to feel the pain. Why is there experience at all, why do you experience at all?

[DHodges]

Why couldn't there just be the same world with the same people, all acting in the same way, and functionally equivalent to what you are now, but without the actual first person subjective experience?

What makes you think other people have subjective experience? Maybe they are zombies - you would never know the difference, right?






--
Brains!

[Sapius]

Avarage,

Why couldn't there just be the same world with the same people, all acting in the same way, and functionally equivalent to what you are now, but without the actual first person subjective experience?

I believe a subjective experience is no more than a sense of existing that helps to react accordingly, including voluntary reactions by things that are made capable individualistically.

[average]

Dhodges, ya that could be, but I assume people are conscious because of various reasons. But the question would still stand, instead of asking why other people are aware, in general, we would ask why am I, the individual, aware, and have some sort of subjective experience, as opposed to none at all. If everyone else is a zombie, why isn't "this" body a zombie as well...

[David Quinn]

Average,

DQ: Consciousness facilitates learning and adapting, and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to complex situations. It is our primary tool for evolutionary survival, as opposed to the claws and fangs of a lion or the speed of a gazelle.

Without consciousness, our behaviour patterns would become rigid and we would no longer be able to adapt to change. We would be in danger of becoming extinct.

Such is the ways of cause and effect.

Average: But things can be operationally equivalent without experiencing anything they are doing.
A lion (as far as I'm concerned) still has first person subjective experiences. So a lion and a person aren't really different in this sense.

A lion cannot easily adapt to changing conditions, largely because its consciousness is limited. It has some awareness which allows it to respond effectively to complex situations, but it doesn't have enough to become adaptable.

Things like bacteria, can learn and adapt and function but they aren't aware (i think) of what they are doing, why aren't we just like robots without any experience of what we do?

A single bacterium cannot adapt to changing conditions within its own short life-span, but large populations of bacteria can evolve fairly quickly over successive generations through genetic mutation. However, this isn't really a practical option for humans with their lengthy life-spans. Instead, we have rely on our consciousness to make the changes which are necessary.

we could carry out each and every action, without any first person subjective experience of what is happening.

Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways.

like there could be pain receptors, and signals telling the brain to pull an arm back, but just automatically -- without anyone there to feel the pain. Why is there experience at all, why do you experience at all?

I've already told you. It is the legacy of our human evolution. Millions of years ago, increases in consciousness happened to be favoured by natural selection for a few of our ancestors, which set the ball rolling and caused us to become what we are today.

-

[average]

Average,

DQ: Consciousness facilitates learning and adapting, and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to complex situations. It is our primary tool for evolutionary survival, as opposed to the claws and fangs of a lion or the speed of a gazelle.

Without consciousness, our behaviour patterns would become rigid and we would no longer be able to adapt to change. We would be in danger of becoming extinct.

Such is the ways of cause and effect.

Average: But things can be operationally equivalent without experiencing anything they are doing.
A lion (as far as I'm concerned) still has first person subjective experiences. So a lion and a person aren't really different in this sense.

A lion cannot easily adapt to changing conditions, largely because its consciousness is limited. It has some awareness which allows it to respond effectively to complex situations, but it doesn't have enough to become adaptable.

Things like bacteria, can learn and adapt and function but they aren't aware (i think) of what they are doing, why aren't we just like robots without any experience of what we do?

A single bacterium cannot adapt to changing conditions within its own short life-span, but large populations of bacteria can evolve fairly quickly over successive generations through genetic mutation. However, this isn't really a practical option for humans with their lengthy life-spans. Instead, we have rely on our consciousness to make the changes which are necessary.

we could carry out each and every action, without any first person subjective experience of what is happening.

Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways.

like there could be pain receptors, and signals telling the brain to pull an arm back, but just automatically -- without anyone there to feel the pain. Why is there experience at all, why do you experience at all?

I've already told you. It is the legacy of our human evolution. Millions of years ago, increases in consciousness happened to be favoured by natural selection for a few of our ancestors, which set the ball rolling and caused us to become what we are today.

-

Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways.

We could easily do all of this and more. We just wouldn't be here to experience any of it. Reflection would happen, but there would be no one there to experience it. Zombies/Robots would do everything we do, like cartoons, but there would be no one home to experience any of it...



I've already told you. It is the legacy of our human evolution. Millions of years ago, increases in consciousness happened to be favoured by natural selection for a few of our ancestors, which set the ball rolling and caused us to become what we are today.

Increases in consciousness? Qualify this.
Are you suggesting there is a rudimentary fundamental consciousness and it evolves over time?
Explain the origin of the this most fundamental beginning consciousness.

[Faust]

there is, in Absolute Reality, no such thing as subjectivity. Since everything is part of the Totality, the individual does not have an inherent existence, as such subjectivity really does not exist. Everything that an individual experiences, comes from the Totality, in which other individuals experience the same thing, as such no real subjectivity.

[Lykaios]

Average,

DQ: Consciousness facilitates learning and adapting, and allows us to respond quickly and effectively to complex situations. It is our primary tool for evolutionary survival, as opposed to the claws and fangs of a lion or the speed of a gazelle.

Without consciousness, our behaviour patterns would become rigid and we would no longer be able to adapt to change. We would be in danger of becoming extinct.

Such is the ways of cause and effect.

Average: But things can be operationally equivalent without experiencing anything they are doing.
A lion (as far as I'm concerned) still has first person subjective experiences. So a lion and a person aren't really different in this sense.

A lion cannot easily adapt to changing conditions, largely because its consciousness is limited. It has some awareness which allows it to respond effectively to complex situations, but it doesn't have enough to become adaptable.

Things like bacteria, can learn and adapt and function but they aren't aware (i think) of what they are doing, why aren't we just like robots without any experience of what we do?

A single bacterium cannot adapt to changing conditions within its own short life-span, but large populations of bacteria can evolve fairly quickly over successive generations through genetic mutation. However, this isn't really a practical option for humans with their lengthy life-spans. Instead, we have rely on our consciousness to make the changes which are necessary.

we could carry out each and every action, without any first person subjective experience of what is happening.

Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways.

like there could be pain receptors, and signals telling the brain to pull an arm back, but just automatically -- without anyone there to feel the pain. Why is there experience at all, why do you experience at all?

I've already told you. It is the legacy of our human evolution. Millions of years ago, increases in consciousness happened to be favoured by natural selection for a few of our ancestors, which set the ball rolling and caused us to become what we are today.

-

Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways.

We could easily do all of this and more. We just wouldn't be here to experience any of it. Reflection would happen, but there would be no one there to experience it. Zombies/Robots would do everything we do, like cartoons, but there would be no one home to experience any of it...

Average, what do you think of the idea that conscientiousness is intelligence - that the ability to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviors, and so on is really exactly the same thing as consciousness? I agree that it may not be so, which would result in the scenario you offer of beings who cogitate without being conscious of it. However, the fact that consciousness does indeed exist in living beings suggests that there is some evolutionary reason that consciousness exists, and I think that it is at least consistent with what we know to suggest that consciousness is really just intelligence.

[divine focus]

there is, in Absolute Reality, no such thing as subjectivity. Since everything is part of the Totality, the individual does not have an inherent existence, as such subjectivity really does not exist. Everything that an individual experiences, comes from the Totality, in which other individuals experience the same thing, as such no real subjectivity.

What is "absolute reality"? It sounds very abstract. If it's everything, could it really be so abstract? You are here, your computer's here, the chair you're sitting in is here, and it's all real. Are you and they only in the abstract?

[1ntel]

It's full of bots!

[daybrown]

It's full of bots!

In the Bagavad Gita, Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are forms which were divinely created and animated which exist only as a challenge to the fulfillment of his Kharma. LIke the monsters in a 3D virtual reality game. The Gita calls them "Avatars".

Thing about an Avatar is, that while you may learn from one, you cant teach one anything. They act only as they have been programmed to. If your question falls outside the range of their subroutines, it get ignored, or at best, an irrelevant strawman is taken up.

But this is not a totally deterministic world. Its full of fractles. Neurons fire randomly. Just ask Heisenburg. You not only dont know, you know that you cannot know. We can only observe 3 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that Quantum mechanics says must exist, depending on which bishop you listen to. Unless you know what is going on with them, you cannot determine everything, or even very much of it.

[andy shaker]

frm Average:
"Without consciousness, we would not be able to reflect, analyze, plan, learn new behaviours, etc. We would simply react, in the moment, in limited, pre-programmed ways."

From Faust 13
"there is, in Absolute Reality, no such thing as subjectivity. Since everything is part of the Totality, the individual does not have an inherent existence, as such subjectivity really does not exist. Everything that an individual experiences, comes from the Totality, in which other individuals experience the same thing, as such no real subjectivity."


HI! I am new here... and have some of my mental debates going on and manifesting in interesting ways... if i may be so bold as to step in. Thanks for your indulgence...;)
In light of the previous posts, which i quote, what does conciousness bring to us, a way of flowing and recieving the those things which are for the greater good as we seek to do, or do we only attract things because we planned and willed them to us? Is our will machinery? or is the flow divinity? Do you think that the path of least resistance is followership and unconciousness, or an indication of mastery of ones world, and inclusion in the Totality?

looking forward to your werds...

[Dan Rowden]

Interesting sudden influx of people who punctuate thusly: ........

[DHodges]

We can only observe 3 of the 10 or 11 dimensions that Quantum mechanics says must exist, depending on which bishop you listen to.

The extra dimensions are required by String Theory, not QM.

Its full of fractles.

It's "fractal".

Just ask Heisenburg

Werner Heisenberg died in 1976. He is unlikely to answer.

Interesting sudden influx of people who punctuate thusly: ........

And let's not get started on the complete lack of understanding of the function of the apostrophe. I guess that's something of a personal peeve. Also, smilies make me want to hit people. This shit just turns me straight into a Grammer Natzee. When I see a misused apostrophe, I reach for my S&W (Strunk & White and/or Smith & Wesson).

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't know what reply to give you. A scientific reply to how it developed from the creation of the universe, or a logical reply to why we need to advance through entertainment, otherwise we do not advance at all.

In a nutshell, we could always be a caveman, and a robot, but advance is due to conciousness. Pre-programmed advance would require the knowledge of colour Tv during the times of Jesus Christ. Colour TV was already a fixed part of our robotic advancement. But to get from A-Z with everything already planned means that a superbeing created us, with all the knowledge, and wisdom of everything that we will ever create in the existence of humankind. Plus it would be a pointless existence.

Existence if for entertainment, and we need concoiusness to advance that entertainment. That's about all really.