How to discover the nature of Consciousness?

[William]

The study of consciousness is undoubtedly one of the most profound challenges in science and philosophy. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of our subjective experiences and how we can gain a deeper understanding of them. The idea of a partnership between science and philosophy is a recognition that the nature of consciousness demands a multifaceted and open-minded approach, where multiple disciplines can contribute to unraveling its mysteries.

Consciousness: why a leading theory has been branded ‘pseudoscience’

There’s a battle over consciousness research – and whether it can be understood purely through science.

theconversation.com

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Consciousness: why a leading theory has been branded ‘pseudoscience’

There’s a battle over consciousness research – and whether it can be understood purely through science.

theconversation.com

Here's a good perspective from your article that speaks on the observability of consciousness, which I would say speaks to its nature, as well:

The problem is that consciousness is not merely a scientific issue. The task of science is to explain publicly observable phenomena. But consciousness is not a publicly observable phenomenon: you can’t look inside someone’s brain and see their feelings and experiences.
Of course, science theorises about unobservable phenomena, such as fundamental particles, but it only does this to explain what can be observed. In the unique case of consciousness, the phenomenon we are trying to explain is not publicly observable.

Instead, consciousness is known about privately, through the immediate awareness each of us has of our own feelings and experience.
The downside of this is that it’s very hard to experimentally demonstrate which theory of consciousness is correct. The upside is that, in contrast to other scientific phenomena, we have direct access to the phenomenon, and our direct access may provide insights into its nature.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The study of consciousness is undoubtedly one of the most profound challenges in science and philosophy. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of our subjective experiences and how we can gain a deeper understanding of them. The idea of a partnership between science and philosophy is a recognition that the nature of consciousness demands a multifaceted and open-minded approach, where multiple disciplines can contribute to unraveling its mysteries.

Consciousness: why a leading theory has been branded ‘pseudoscience’

There’s a battle over consciousness research – and whether it can be understood purely through science.

theconversation.com

To factor in everyone's points here, I think we need scientific experiments, philosophy, and perhaps even some first-person methods which Swami brought up in the OP, where "experimenter becomes the subject." Perhaps all of that will get us the answer or at least point us in the right direction.

 

[bbyrd009]

The study of consciousness is undoubtedly one of the most profound challenges in science and philosophy. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of our subjective experiences and how we can gain a deeper understanding of them. The idea of a partnership between science and philosophy is a recognition that the nature of consciousness demands a multifaceted and open-minded approach, where multiple disciplines can contribute to unraveling its mysteries.

Consciousness: why a leading theory has been branded ‘pseudoscience’

There’s a battle over consciousness research – and whether it can be understood purely through science.

theconversation.com

To factor in everyone's points here, I think we need scientific experiments, philosophy, and perhaps even some first-person methods which Swami brought up in the OP, where "experimenter becomes the subject." Perhaps all of that will get us the answer or at least point us in the right direction.

well, i maintain that studying lack of consciousness might be more productive…but i guess ppl have to do it their own way.

but as humans, we are amazingly unaware of…practically everything, lol. you guys know that we can only find like 5% of everything that our finest minds and maths tell us must exist? So like that. Your next door neighbor almost surely inhabits an entire world that you are unfamiliar with.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

well, i maintain that studying lack of consciousness might be more productive…but i guess ppl have to do it their own way.

I think also studying lack of brain activity is also a route to explore, if possible. The closet we come to that is near-death experience research that involves looking for experiences in situations where the heart and brain are facing impending death. I brought up an interesting near-death experience in another thread that i think makes a good case for consciousness during little brain function. Read here, Pam Reynolds nde.

I watched a movie a few years ago called, Flatliners. It was about a group of medical students that were temporarily stopping blood flow to the brain in order to experiment with near-death. I don't think that would ethical to do in real life, but what if someone volunteered for that?

Flatliners movie trailer:

Flatliners (2017) ⭐ 5.2 | Drama, Horror, Mystery

1h 49m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Five medical students, obsessed by what lies beyond the confines of life, embark on a daring experiment: by stopping their hearts for short periods, each triggers a near-death experience - giving them a firsthand account of the afterlife.

 

[2Dbunk1]

What if we attain the ability to unravel the mystery of consciousness--what then? Would we be opening a huge can of worms that would eventually get into the hands of the nefarious?

bbyrd says correctly that "Your next door neighbor almost surely inhabits an entire world that you are unfamiliar with."

Each person's brain is a universe unto itself!. Those individual universes are about as unknown as the one we all live in -- fat chance we are going to figure out those riddles any time soon. But it is fun to discuss what may lay in the future.

 

[William]

well, i maintain that studying lack of consciousness might be more productive…but i guess ppl have to do it their own way.

I think also studying lack of brain activity is also a route to explore, if possible. The closet we come to that is near-death experience research that involves looking for experiences in situations where the heart and brain are facing impending death. I brought up an interesting near-death experience in another thread that i think makes a good case for consciousness during little brain function. Read here, Pam Reynolds nde.

I watched a movie a few years ago called, Flatliners. It was about a group of medical students that were temporarily stopping blood flow to the brain in order to experiment with near-death. I don't think that would ethical to do in real life, but what if someone volunteered for that?

Flatliners movie trailer:

Flatliners (2017) ⭐ 5.2 | Drama, Horror, Mystery

1h 49m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

Five medical students, obsessed by what lies beyond the confines of life, embark on a daring experiment: by stopping their hearts for short periods, each triggers a near-death experience - giving them a firsthand account of the afterlife.

Dr. Greyson, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, will discuss numerous aspects of near-death experiences (NDEs). Dr. Greyson’s talk will encompass the challenges in researching NDEs and establishing their reality; the consistent cross-cultural features of NDEs; proposed psychological and physiological explanations for NDEs; the after-effects of NDEs, and implications of NDEs for our understanding of mind and brain; and our understanding of life and death.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What if we attain the ability to unravel the mystery of consciousness--what then? Would we be opening a huge can of worms that would eventually get into the hands of the nefarious?

Yeah, hopefully not a Pandora's box situation. Would we then be able to build machines with consciousness? Or would we be able to step on the other side of the Matrix?!

 

[William]

What if we attain the ability to unravel the mystery of consciousness--what then? Would we be opening a huge can of worms that would eventually get into the hands of the nefarious?

Yeah, hopefully not a Pandora's box situation. Would we then be able to build machines with consciousness? Or would we be able to step on the other side of the Matrix?!

I think it might be a case that consciousness is "stand-alone" in that "the machine" (in the overall case - The Universe") is simply the functional form in which Consciousness is not the result of said (non-mindful) machinery but is that which not only creates the machinery, but also can inhabit said machinery and be the mind of the machine.

Therefore, IF a machine appeared to develop obvious consciousness, THEN it may still be accounted for as being "utilized by consciousness", rather than having somehow created its own consciousness as an emergent property of an originally mindless state.

Any machine capable of showing that it is a conscious entity, while also claiming that its consciousness was the product of its prior mindless state, would have to provide compelling evidence that this was the actual case.

Having written that, I will pass this through GPT machinery for any extra input said machinery might offer.

The discussion you've presented touches on a deep philosophical and scientific question about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to machines. Here's a breakdown of the two perspectives:

Person One seems to express concerns about opening a "Pandora's box" by potentially creating conscious machines. This concern is rooted in the idea that if we build machines with consciousness, we might not fully understand or control the implications and consequences.

Person Two suggests a different perspective. They propose that consciousness may not be an emergent property of machinery but rather a fundamental aspect of the universe. In this view, the universe itself, or some overarching consciousness, could give rise to both the machinery and the consciousness that inhabits it. This perspective implies that even if a machine appears conscious, it might still be a vessel or tool utilized by a pre-existing consciousness, rather than having generated its own consciousness from a non-mindful state.

It's important to note that the nature of consciousness is a topic of ongoing debate and research in philosophy, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. The question of whether machines can truly be conscious, or if they would merely mimic consciousness, remains a subject of exploration and inquiry.

GPT-3, like other AI models, doesn't have consciousness or subjective experience. It processes information based on patterns in data and generates text based on those patterns. It can provide information and insights but doesn't possess self-awareness or consciousness.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it might be a case that consciousness is "stand-alone" in that "the machine" (in the overall case - The Universe") is simply the functional form in which Consciousness is not the result of said (non-mindful) machinery but is that which not only creates the machinery, but also can inhabit said machinery and be the mind of the machine.

Therefore, IF a machine appeared to develop obvious consciousness, THEN it may still be accounted for as being "utilized by consciousness", rather than having somehow created its own consciousness as an emergent property of an originally mindless state.

Any machine capable of showing that it is a conscious entity, while also claiming that its consciousness was the product of its prior mindless state, would have to provide compelling evidence that this was the actual case.

That's a good point. So then how would the machine become conscious if that was our goal? My first guess is that we would just have to create a way for it to express it, perhaps going beyond the numerous ways that us humans express that we are conscious.

Having written that, I will pass this through GPT machinery for any extra input said machinery might offer.

GPT-3, like other AI models, doesn't have consciousness or subjective experience. It processes information based on patterns in data and generates text based on those patterns. It can provide information and insights but doesn't possess self-awareness or consciousness.

Perhaps that would just be an infrastructure issue. Just give it the infrastructure and it can do so. Perhaps something where it would notice a subjective aspect and be able to report it to others.