“I always Lie” and theories of consciousness

[AlP]

Sure what I meant is How about you give me what you think are a minimal set of Properties, axioms of your consciouss experiance. thanks

I'm afraid I don't know of any that could be used in a deductive argument. In my experience, this kind of argument is only appropriate in specialized domains like math. You could try a college psychology textbook. Psychology by David Myers is good and there's a preview online.

[Sophus]

So um....why did you even bring up this topic.  I don't recall anyone making the claim that reality is an illusion.

As I mentioned earlier, often Christianity tries to pass all atheists off as Nihilists. Either way, still fun to think about. Lately I've been wondering what would be required of an artificial computer to gain awareness/consciousness under the premises that our brains are a computing system, functioning deterministically.  

I think you should. That kind of stuff interests me greatly.

So as not to hijack fdesilva's thread, here it is.

Compters gain awareness would to me mean that they must satisfy the 3 properties or axioms I stated. If you agree with me are you game to explore if they can satisfy these 3 axioms

Well, yes and no. I don't know that strictly visual observation is necessary for awareness. And perhaps you didn't mean to imply that by it, but rather simply that the being/object must have senses and the able to analyze them. I added another element to it: feelings as the driving force behind the will (which I can agree with as the third component but not necessarily Freewill. that's a bit of a different philosophical issue.)

[happynewyear]

"I always lie" can be:
1.True
2. False
3. Partly true/partly false
Which is it for you?
Is consciousness an illusion?
Some, belief systems, believe that ,what you call reality ,is in fact a dream.
So how do you propose to prove consciousness. As far as I am aware,there are no experiments to prove the existence of consciousness.
So what am I to do, take your word for it?

[fdesilva]

Sure what I meant is How about you give me what you think are a minimal set of Properties, axioms of your consciouss experiance. thanks

I'm afraid I don't know of any that could be used in a deductive argument. In my experience, this kind of argument is only appropriate in specialized domains like math. You could try a college psychology textbook. Psychology by David Myers is good and there's a preview online.

Ok how about giving me the properties and explaining why they cannot be applied in an a deductive argument. Thanks

[fdesilva]

"I always lie" can be:
1.True
2. False
3. Partly true/partly false
Which is it for you?
Is consciousness an illusion?
Some, belief systems, believe that ,what you call reality ,is in fact a dream.
So how do you propose to prove consciousness. As far as I am aware,there are no experiments to prove the existence of consciousness.
So what am I to do, take your word for it?

I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

[happynewyear]

I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

That so-called person could be a "zombie". You could be deluding youself. You could be an automaton with a program called "conscious".
These questions of consciousness have been asked by the best brains in science and philosophy.(the so called easy problem and the hard problem).
Is the concept that you have, about god, going to "throw any new light" on the subject?

[fdesilva]

I dont need to prove to myself I am conscious, if a person is consciouss then it is self evident to that person. As such what matters is not finding a proof for consciouness but a minimal description of it. Having obtained this minimal description then it would be possible to investigate,how it can come about via properties of matter.

That so-called person could be a "zombie". You could be deluding youself. You could be an automaton with a program called "conscious".
These questions of consciousness have been asked by the best brains in science and philosophy.(the so called easy problem and the hard problem).
Is the concept that you have, about god, going to "throw any new light" on the subject?

From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else. So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance. That is the starting point of everything to me.
Now in the Axioms of Consciousness, that I gave previously in this post, I identified 2 components.
1. The Observer
2. The Observed.
The Hard problem is all about 1 and the easy all about 2.
Here is a link to a paper I wrote on this subject centuries ago
http://getbestprice.com.au/papers/Consciousness.htm

[fdesilva]

Well, yes and no. I don't know that strictly visual observation is necessary for awareness. And perhaps you didn't mean to imply that by it, but rather simply that the being/object must have senses and the able to analyze them. I added another element to it: feelings as the driving force behind the will (which I can agree with as the third component but not necessarily Freewill. that's a bit of a different philosophical issue.)

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

[Whitney]

From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else.

People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance.

I'm not really sure how you are defining consciousness.....but you have left off the viable option that all your experiences are simply the subconscious dream of a brain in a jar.

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

[pinkocommie]

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

[fdesilva]

From my perspective Everything I know is via my conscioussness, So if my Conscioussness is not real then nither is everything else.

People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

So from my perspective the only thing that I can be 100% sure of or assume is my consciouss experiance.

I'm not really sure how you are defining consciousness.....but you have left off the viable option that all your experiences are simply the subconscious dream of a brain in a jar.

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

People who are not mentally well observe a reality that is not real but is the making of their own.  So how can you be sure that just because you perceive things to be real that they are?

That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

[fdesilva]

The observer feels the Observered. Yes to see = feel.

  How can looking at something produce a tactile sensation?

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

[Whitney]

That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

So......

If you understand that it is not outside of possibility that we are computer programs or brains in a jar why did you say "Thus any theory about the consciousness experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”
"?

You aren't exactly being very consistent in your views so it's confusing to follow what you are saying.

[pinkocommie]

I don't know what 'to see=feel' is supposed to mean either.  How does that statement make sense?

I am using the term feel to mean anything that comes via our senses. True there are more complex feeling, however you need to sort these simple ones first.

Why make up a new definition for feel when you can just say 'experience'?  That seems to be what you really mean.

[fdesilva]

That is precisely the point. All I have ever done or learnt is via my consciousness. For example when I read or do a practical experiment in physics its via my consciousness. So yes the whole thing could be that I am just a make up of a computer programme, yet that is irrelevant to me. What I am trying to do is make logical sense of what is dished out to me via my consciousness. As much as I have learnt an excepted the laws of physics dished out to me by my consciousness, I also want to see how within these laws consciousness can arise.  To this end I have come up with my own little theory, and at least from my perspective it is the best fit.

So......

If you understand that it is not outside of possibility that we are computer programs or brains in a jar why did you say "Thus any theory about the consciousness experience that concludes consciousness to be an illusion, falls into the same logical inconsistency of a person that says “I always lie”
"?

You aren't exactly being very consistent in your views so it's confusing to follow what you are saying.

It is simply this.

Assume the Consciousness is created by brain in a jar or computer program
Then
Your statement
"Knowledge is basically just obtaining data. Bugs have knowledge of their surroundings (such as the vibrations they pick up in their antenna) but, as far as we can tell, do not have consciousness (self awareness)."

Is false as the bugs as well as their knowledge are not real either as they are a construct of the programme.  Thus showing the only knowledge you have is created by and exist via your consciousness. If it were a illusion so will everything it has dished out to you, that is the earth ,sun moon stars, laws of physics, the subconscious mind and its ability write computer programmes etc