I always figured that animals all have consciousnesses too. They all can communicate with each other just as well as we can. They have emotions and values too. Just not ones a human could understand. They can't project to the level we can, what with our ability to direct mass projects to construct and destroy, simply because they didn't evolve that way.

I also think that consciousness is a truly mystical thing that transcends the normal world, but that every organism has a consciousness in some way.

Electrical pulses in the brain. Open your head up and stimulate the exact same neurons and you'll think you hear a bell, without sound waves.

Sort of takes the magic out of life, so never take a Neuroscience class.

None. "Consciousness" is not some separate attribute. There is no "entity that exists within us". You have a brain, it processes information, and controls the rest of the body in response.

I know. This is all fine and dandy.

But why am "I" experiencing all of this? Why doesn't my brain and body just do all of these things without me to experience it?

That question doesn't really make any sense. You are your brain and your body, in every way you are inseparable, there is no you to be without.

How else would an animal capable of speech, abstract thought, and memory view the world, if not through speech, abstract thought and memories?

There's no purpose. In the early stages of humans, the individuals with the slightest form of consciousness had a better chance of reproducing than those without --> evolution.

Higher thought, creativity, and language are evolutionary traits that humans capitalized on and used to survive and become the dominant form of life on the planet. None of those could have occurred without consciousness, awareness, and a sense of self.

As for the "I" and "me" and all that rubbish, you're too mistaken on that point to argue against it. Why are "you" experiencing it? Because "you" are not separate from your body or brain. "You" are not some ethereal sprite that's taken up house in a fleshy contraption.

I think therefore I am, et cetera.



But there is, objectively, a trait to all things that are the color blue in that they absorb other wavelengths of light and reflect the specific "blue" wavelength back to our eyes. It is a physical trait of physical things, not purely an idea that people came up with. Perception of that trait is a result of our eyes being able to detect the reflected light. A colorblind person doesn't change what kind of light is reflected to his eyes, but his eyes just can't pick it up properly.

Not every product of evolution has a specific purpose. Evolution is not about becoming better, getting better parts and attributes, it's all a big accident or a very subtle yet constant development and evolution doesn't have a "reason", it just happens and its products are things we just have to live with for better or worse.
We developed consciousness by accident. Chimpanzees also have an advanced consciousness, as they are besides human the only animal that understands the concept of "me". Chimpanzees have very advanced brain, and thus it would be expected that developing a consciousness is an inevitable product of brain development.


P.S. I don't believe in any "soul" crap. Our minds are a set of chemical reactions, nothing more.

Consciousness is the act of synthesizing all of the information that comes in through your senses and linking it to your memories, to form one coherent representation of the world. That running representation is your state of being awake. When you’re asleep you’re either completely unconscious, or you’re experiencing a world that’s formed entirely from your memories – dreams.

I believe that animals are conscious, but they aren’t self aware. A robot, or better yet, a neural network (robot that can learn) could be both.

To get metaphysical – it’s possible that our minds are fine-tuned to tap into consciousness, just like a radio is tuned to pick up certain frequencies. Thus, consciousness isn’t something that exists in our mind, it’s something our mind allows us to experience.

I think that my brain and I are somewhat separable.

Think of "thoughts" for example. We can define a thought as chemical/electrical processes happening within the brain. But I can also define "thoughts" as something that I personally experience, something totally different. When I think about something, I do not experience chemicals shuffling around in my brain, I experience something totally different and seemingly immaterial.

You can argue that my thoughts ARE just those chemicals, but I disagree entirely. I think of the chemical processes as being the CAUSE of my thoughts. Similarly, my sentience is absolutely non-physical, despite the fact that it can potentially be explained by physical processes.

That's it andy.. have you ever eaten any 'Strange meat'?

Now you're getting into a spiritual discussion, and the thread has therefore lost all value. You can't argue against beliefs.

Yes, I understand that. That's why I referred to the eyes and such as instruments or probes. Like how an antenna can pick up radio wavelengths, which is basically a 'color' we can't measure with our built-in biological instruments.

But this brings me to a question I've had since I was 5 years old. Does the color blue look the same through your eyes & brain as it does with my eyes & brain? What image is rendered in our vision is a perception of interpreted data. The actual physical light wave must look very different if say light could reflect off the light to show us how the wave really looks.

I'm a man of science and philosophy, but I know when not to overstep that line into mysticism when using philosophical discussion. In this instance it's difficult. I'm mostly concerned with relaxing Daedric_Odyssey's concerns.

It doesn't matter. What matters is we all agree that blue objects are blue.

But you can probably track the perceived color through electrical patterns in the brain. If they're the same in two people with the same stimulus, it's reasonable to assume we're perceiving the same thing.

Some languages don't even have a word for the color "green". Some languages have words for blue-green, and so it's treated as an entirely separate color. It doesn't matter, as long as we can translate.

I guess you're right. I should probably follow my own advice and not think too much about it. :banghead:

Consciousness if a bi product of evolutionary adaptations. It was never set out to be designed, through the complexity of actions to keep track of it kind of just happened. It's formed by tons of little cells in your brain reacting to your senses form other cells. If it ever had a purpose I would say evolution and to keep our species on top. That's all anything is for, living better than longer than the next guy. Now though due to it's complexity we can turn out attentions to whatever we want, but at the end of the day the majority of people just seem to use it to strive for a better life for them and their family. So the same thing it's always been used for. It's a very rare occurrence (if it even happens) that someone comes along and does stuff outside the scope of human survival and betterment.

Edit
The eyes cones/rods that detect light can in fact differ. This is why some people can be colour blind. The colour is there, but it's their eye that may be the problem. So to speak. But the wavelength of blue to not be blue is quite impossible. At least for now at any rate. Though I won't go so far as to say it's forever impossible, I'm only one man.

I'm actually somewhat of a materialist, and I don't believe in anything spiritual or religious. If I imagine a cube, then this imaginary item is made of nothingness. The cube undoubtedly exists in some sense, but it is not physical.I suppose you could say that the chemicals in my brain that create the thought "are" the cube, but I wouldn't really agree with that.

In the same sense, sentience does exist. It may be the result of physical matter, but the thing itself is not really physical. Imagine this scenario.

I create a teleporter. It copies your body atom for atom, then kills you. Then it reassembles you body, atom for atom. Even if it is an exact physical replica of you, YOU have still been killed, and you are dead. They are physically exactly the same, and will act exactly the same, but you will be dead.

Unless you want to say that the teleporter will actually work, and that your sentience will be teleported alive and well in the body made of new atoms. If this were the case, what if the original wasn't killed? Would you experience being in two bodies at once?

Why wouldn't you agree with that? What else is it?


Sentience is physical. You can't have sentience without some form of data storage and recall.

You're basing your argument on a hypothetical situation that relies on a technology that may very well be impossible. Try again.

Why would you experience being in two bodies at once? The first one is gone.

Oh I see, what you're proposing isn't a teleporter. The first body has no brain function, it's dead. You won't be in two bodies. Even if the first survived you would have two yous only in the sense that you both begin with the same memories. Both brains are separate entities, and the second one of you experiences something the other doesn't, you cease to be the same.

This sort of thing has been studied with identical twins. Raised in separate places, they act in entirely different ways. Their personalities are unique. Personality is the result of biology and memory. Change the memories, change the person.

Let's assume this teleportation system works. All atoms are arranged in the exact places they were before, and all cells are still alive. Your neurons are the same. They have the same connections. They create the same chains and loops. You have the same memories and motor skills. You are you.