To add to the list of interesting concepts, to what extent to we consider our entire bodies to be part of 'self' but not really think about why.
One could argue that our bodies are part of our sensory organs and thus an integral part of our consciousness, but why, for example, include our retina's but not our glasses?
If we were to immerse ourselves into a virtual reality machine hooked up to a real robot in a different locations such that all senses are passed on to our brains, surely before long we will be thinking of the robot as being part of our 'self'?
Further if we play a virtual reality game in which the extension of our senses is in a virtual body, we may even include the virtual body into our concept of 'self'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFurthermore, volition (ie all the types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, compulsions, and decisions that arised after having perception/ cognition) registers whether "sense" data as I offered it are recognized or not.
Most of your post is a little too deep for me. 🙂
But I disagree that sense is a necessary prerequisite for consciousness or even volition.
I hope that now it is clear that all these three qualities are a necessary prerequisite for volition, and that consciousness derives from the previous four in whole😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn my opinion all these concepts are delusional because they are all related to the fact that they are deriving by means of Experience😵
To add to the list of interesting concepts, to what extent to we consider our entire bodies to be part of 'self' but not really think about why.
One could argue that our bodies are part of our sensory organs and thus an integral part of our consciousness, but why, for example, include our retina's but not our glasses?
If we were to immerse ourselves int ...[text shortened]... es is in a virtual body, we may even include the virtual body into our concept of 'self'.
Originally posted by black beetleI don't think I am understanding you. Are you saying that my brain must be receiving inputs in order for it to be conscious? If so, I disagree.
Furthermore, volition (ie all the types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, compulsions, and decisions that arised after having perception/ cognition) registers whether "sense" data as I offered it are recognized or not.
I hope that now it is clear that all these three qualities are a necessary prerequisite for volition, and that consciousness derives from the previous four in whole😵
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we take a newly born child, put him in a black box, where he can have no perceptions at all through his senses. I would think he will not have any consciousness at all after a while. The brains functions depend of perceptions.
I don't think I am understanding you. Are you saying that my brain must be receiving inputs in order for it to be conscious? If so, I disagree.
But this is extrem. (And unethical.)
I don't lose my consiousness if I suddenly don't recieve any inputs for a short while.
How hadle the fact that the brain produce its own receptions if deprived of outer ones?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have your body and your six senses. Without this tool, sense (not feeling/ emotions but as I explained you earlier) is impossible.
I don't think I am understanding you. Are you saying that my brain must be receiving inputs in order for it to be conscious? If so, I disagree.
Cognition is the agent that enables you to register the sense data that you receive (ie you evaluate that this is a car, this is a tree etc). Without sense, cognition is impossible.
Volition without cognition is impossible. And consiousness without volition is impossible😵
Originally posted by black beetleI disagree. I strongly believe that if the senses are turned off for a period then consciousness does not instantaneously disappear. If you will concede that much then you will have to concede that an alternative prerequisite (to sense) for consciousness might be memory even if those memories are not based on actual experience.
You have your body and your six senses. Without this tool, sense (not feeling/ emotions but as I explained you earlier) is impossible.
Cognition is the agent that enables you to register the sense data that you receive (ie you evaluate that this is a car, this is a tree etc). Without sense, cognition is impossible.
Volition without cognition is impossible. And consiousness without volition is impossible😵
I see no reason to believe that we cannot create a fully conscious computer program which has no input other than its memory which could be created directly without sensory input.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut as long as the 6 senses are off, consciousness is absent. Or do you keep your consciousness when are knocked out or unconscious?
I disagree. I strongly believe that if the senses are turned off for a period then consciousness does not instantaneously disappear. If you will concede that much then you will have to concede that an alternative prerequisite (to sense) for consciousness might be memory even if those memories are not based on actual experience.
I see no reason to believ ...[text shortened]... which has no input other than its memory which could be created directly without sensory input.
Originally posted by black beetleYour example does not prove the point. If anything it is irrelevant as we do not loose our senses when knocked unconscious nor when we sleep or any other state of unconsciousness.
But as long as the 6 senses are off, consciousness is absent. Or do you keep your consciousness when are knocked out or unconscious?
Can you present any reasonable argument as to why you think consciousness is absent when our senses are off?
I personally believe that to all intents and purposes my consciousness is frequently active without any sensory input ie the sensory input though received by the brain is blocked by areas of the brain external to my consciousness.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow is it possible to keep our senses when we are not conscious? Why you think that consiousness and unconsiousness is just the same condition?
Your example does not prove the point. If anything it is irrelevant as we do not loose our senses when knocked unconscious nor when we sleep or any other state of unconsciousness.
Can you present any reasonable argument as to why you think consciousness is absent when our senses are off?
I personally believe that to all intents and purposes my conscious ...[text shortened]... nput though received by the brain is blocked by areas of the brain external to my consciousness.
My consiousness was absent for at least 50 minutes when I had a heavy motorcycle crash in 1996. I recall nothing of whatever happened during that time, but when I was conscious again I informed the medical aids who finally came around about my condition, I asked them to use a hard stretcher and I eased them to have me transported to the ambulance.
After some weeks I remained unsoncious during an operation for 7 hours, and I recall nothing of whatever happened during that time.
Also, the fact that the products of the World 2 are understood solely by the person that produces/ evaluates them, is enough to show how different the psycho/mental phenomena are from every other known physical phenomena, for which all the observers can have the same opinion by means of specific measurements. This is the reason why the models of the stimulated or suspended nerve cells can describe a brain that reacts automatically through differ reflexes, but they cannot describe a brain that is capable to proceed through the four qualities I mentioned earlier. The reaction of the brain when we are unconscious is purely reflexive -and there is absence of cognition, abstract thought etc.
This is the reason why I claim that, when our 6 senses are cut, our consiousness is absent. This is the reason why, also, our consciousness is absent when we are dead.
Originally posted by black beetleOur senses at a minimum still feed their data to the brain. Your appeared to be saying that the lack of incoming data caused unconsciousness- not so.
How is it possible to keep our senses when we are not conscious?
Why you think that consiousness and unconsiousness is just the same condition?
Did I say that?
My consiousness was absent for at least 50 minutes when I had a heavy motorcycle crash in 1996. I recall nothing of whatever happened during that time, but when I was conscious again I informed the medical aids who finally came around about my condition, I asked them to use a hard stretcher and I eased them to have me transported to the ambulance.
After some weeks I remained unsoncious during an operation for 7 hours, and I recall nothing of whatever happened during that time.
I am not sure what the relevance of the above stories are, most of us have experience unconscious episodes (or believe we have) but what is the relevance?
I must also note that your failure to recall is not a guarantee that you were unconscious.
Also, the fact that the products of the World 2 are understood solely by the person that produces/ evaluates them, is enough to show how different the psycho/mental phenomena are from every other known physical phenomena, for which all the observers can have the same opinion by means of specific measurements. This is the reason why the models of the stimulated or suspended nerve cells can describe a brain that reacts automatically through differ reflexes, but they cannot describe a brain that is capable to proceed through the four qualities I mentioned earlier. The reaction of the brain when we are unconscious is purely reflexive -and there is absence of cognition, abstract thought etc.
I dispute that. The brain is capable of an extraordinary amount of calculated thought that is not directly tied to our consciousness. Most of us can carry out highly complex tasks without even being aware that we are doing them. For example much of my driving skills are carried out without conscious control, I do not choose when to change gear via a conscious decision. Similarly I can read a book out loud whilst thinking of something else altogether.
This is the reason why I claim that, when our 6 senses are cut, our consiousness is absent.
I really don't see any argument that calls for that conclusion. I must be misunderstanding you.
This is the reason why, also, our consciousness is absent when we are dead.
Our consciousness is absent when we are dead because our consciousness is reliant on working brain machinery.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe talking past each other! I would better define consiousness once more;
Our senses at a minimum still feed their data to the brain. Your appeared to be saying that the lack of incoming data caused unconsciousness- not so.
[b]Why you think that consiousness and unconsiousness is just the same condition?
Did I say that?
My consiousness was absent for at least 50 minutes when I had a heavy motorcycle crash in 1996. ...[text shortened]... ess is absent when we are dead because our consciousness is reliant on working brain machinery.
I think that the sense organs assist our brain whilst it produces a "useful" model; then we use to consider that this model itself is Reality, and then we become dependent on it. According to this primal definition I believe that consciousness is the main agent that enables us to construct our personal virtual reality, that is.
Also, the way you perceive how we drive is false. The fact that we drive without being forced to think "...now I will do this and now I will do that" it means not that our brain does not evaluate the whole procedure, but that rather through constant training our ability to decipher the differ indications and the signs of the environmental conditions, along with the operational conditions of our vehicle, are conducted without forcing us to dedicate all the potential of our attention at the action of driving itself; in the contary, it means that we are so well trained that we pay solely a small percentage of our attention for the action of the driving itself, however we remain ever ready to react genuinely or according to our driving skills in case of an emergency. We can anytime switch from the level of the low awareness to the level of full awareness at once, sure thing, and we surely cannot do such a thing if our sense organs are offering to our brain "a minimum of data".
And of course consiousness must not be confused with awareness.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOn what do you define "significantly larger"? I defined mine based on a dynamically continuous definition of self. This gives me a clear exclusion of the case of a copy, but which is still ambiguous regarding hemispherectomy.
I don't understand. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would apply equally to your copy and your future self, and I am not convinced that you have given a good argument as to why it warrants declaring the copy a separate entity. Sure it may result in a small percentage of difference between the copy and the original but it would not be significantly larger than the changes the original undergoes on a daily basis.
Your comment "not be significantly larger than the changes the original undergoes on a daily basis" seems to indicate that you view the dynamics of the self as a collection of static states (in this case with the time interval of a day). I find this to have even more problems.