[MD] Consciousness

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mel

13 Dec. you wrote: (about "consciousness") 

> Going on the principle that the way in which one structures a problem
> opens or restricts the domain of the solution, I'd say that the SOM
> binary off/on postulate fails to take into account the way
> consciousness is observed to work--it causes the observer of
> consciousness to 'throw away" data, to ignore what doesn't fit the hypothesis. 

SOM's subject/object dualism isn't primarily  off/on, but let's see how 
this develops.

> Any animal that exhibits a 'survival instinct' is by definition
> self-conscious; it has to understand what is self versus what is not
> self and what is a threat to itself.  Now there is a definitional
> matter to clear up, which is the distinction between: 

> 1) dynamic self-consciousness in an immediate situation in the present,
> and 

Animals awareness (biological value perception) are by senses, hope 
we agree about that? Also that sleep isn't present at the lower end of 
the bio. scale, it has something to do with more complex neural 
systems. Regarding "dynamic" in the static range I am skeptical   

> 2) 'remembered' self-consciousness in social roles or comparisons with
> static knowledge build up in memory over time. 
 
We are now at the higher end of biology where sleep is a phenomenon 
probably due to a complex neural system, and here something even 
more important emerges, namely a random access memory - not just 
the the hard-wired "operative system". BTW What appears as "social" 
at this stage is "still in its parent's service"   

> Animal self-consciousness tends towards the dynamic immediate for the
> majority of its life, because that is what is most successful in
> staying alive. 

I still have doubts about "dynamic". The most static is in fact what's 
known as the autonomous neural system, the said hard-wired 
operating system, instincts, reflexes. 

> Remembered self consciousness for them is less about social roles,
> because they have only very rudimentary social structures, 

Sounds good. The said social structure still serves biology, but I must 
dwell some more on the biological complexity that now had (I assume) 
grown to brain size and (staying with the the computer analogy) 
developed "caches" where parts of memory could be retrieved and 
replayed through logic gates so that (still language-less) creatures 
could envisage situations "if I do this, such will follow". This is 
INTELLIGENCE and confusing it with INTELLECT is what screws up 
the MOQ .         

> but in the course of living they build up remembered experience (as
> opposed to instinctual) and the integration of acquired memory into the
> immediate requires a self-consciousness. (I won't discuss it here, but
> the implicatiions of animal play make self-consciousness apparent in a
> different way)

We say about the same things, only your "self-awareness" still don't 
sound right, it is'nt supposed to have grades or "different ways" only  
be a  "God's Eye" view. Animals clearly haven't entered the social level 
and its language, not to speak of the intellectual  levels whose S/O has 
spawned the ultimate dualism: the subject aware of itself .      

> If language is abstract mapping of meaning, then obviously
> the richness of human language is not matched by the dog,
> however, dogs do 'map meaning' although differently and less
> richly.  tail position, head position, body attitude, all are used by
> fido to convey meaning.  We will likely never know if they "talk to
> themselves" or if they have some internal "narrative."

>From intellect seen language is an abstract mapping, but the social 
level has no abstract/concrete schism because that level is pre-
intellect (still is non-intellect) Language was a mighty tool for conveying 
social patterns, f.ex. a means to contact the forces/gods ..whatever 
that governed that existence. Rituals (remnants of which are "modern" 
religions prayers and sacraments) were what everything was about. 
Animals were part of their non-divided "magical" existence and could 
for be brought to their hunting ground by correctly performed rituals.     

> Of course the animal changes state upon awakening, just as we do.  The
> complexity of our brains and the minds that 'emerge' from that
> complexity are simply different in degree from the dog's. 

Dogs aside for a moment. The human brain is - they say - exactly the 
same as at Cro-Magnon times, and "mind" - well - that's the very crux. 
>From the intellectual LEVEL'S p.o.v. the term means "ability to think" 
(the said "intelligence") and if the MOQ is viewed from it's own 4th. 
level it is made into a hotch-potch of S/O-ish concepts.      

> Anthropomorphically, we have carried the story that our narrative is
> different from the beasts' in kind. Some have  thought that a conceit
> on our part, and it probably is, although it may be true anyway,
> because in emergent systems there is often a "critical mass" that once
> exceeded causes behavior to change in quality. 
 
Anthromorph .. you bet, it's been much talk about "emotions" at the 
biological level, that animals are afraid in the fear or even agony 
sense, but that's impossible and MOQ's level matrix brings greater 
clarity also here. 
  
Finally the A.I. issue:

> I have read., observed, and worked too much with complexity
> and adaptive and emergent systems to believe it impossible
> that consciousness won't arise on/in other 'platforms' than the
> biological.

I guess you say that consciousness (the self-awareness sense) may 
arise from complex enough "chips" (Brain in a Vat). I doubt it, my point 
still is that self-awareness is intellect's ultimate S/O (the mind aware of 
itself and the world) As such it's a most valuable static concept, but a 
hoax at the Quality Reality where there's only the value perception 
relative to the level in question.    

> But, given the evolutionary history, I doubt it will be very similar to
> or maybe even recognizable to man. Much of our desire to "take control"
> is a result of the inborn need/desire to breed and to survive potential
> predation. A consciousness that arises with out the need to breed or
> the pressure of predation may have no compulsion or interest in 'taking
> control' of anything.  It may have other "gredients" that it find
> relevant in its development.

"Not recognizable to man" is a safe hedge ;-)   Well, Mel, this is very 
interesting  you surely know much about the technicalities here, but 
the MOQ opens up a new vista that also includes the A.I. As said the 
characteristic of biology is reproduction, only at the upper fringes came 
the said "intelligence" that IMO was the stepping stone to the social 
level. So even if a - say - bird's intelligence can be replicated, the egg 
can't 

IMO

Bo