PDA

View Full Version : Consciousness



rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-08, 10:31 AM
I tried making my point in another thread, but no one replied.

We think we are conscious. If you hit a mosquito to kill it, do you ever think if he is conscious of his being alive or not? What about the relationship between consciousness and intelligence? Chimps are conscious to an extent, and are also intelligent to an extent. Does that mean consciousness is related to intelligence?

About the mosquito, we say that he is not conscious. Envision an alien who can see us, and comparing us with his robots, he says that his robots are more conscious than us. How would we feel then? We feel that we have made ultimate discoveries about the universe. But have we? Or have we, being just 'Robots' , failed to see inside the overlying Relativistic, non-deterministic veil? Are we being bounded by our limited consciousness?

What if there is an upper level of consciousness that wwe cannot realise? Why, in the first place, do we say that we are conscious?

ferg.c.
2004-Oct-08, 10:58 AM
I don't want to get on the black list talking about out of bounds topics but it sounds to me like you should read Peter Ouspenskys New Model of The Universe" which of course has nothing to do with the real universe. The state of consciousness one rung up the ladder from us is something you nor I will ever under stand in our terms. Rather like explaining to the mosquito why you want to kill it. That's enough para psychology for a space and astonomy site don't you think? :rolleyes:

GOURDHEAD
2004-Oct-09, 12:33 AM
Here's the Merriam Webster definition of consciousness:
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND


What if there is an upper level of consciousness that wwe cannot realise? Why, in the first place, do we say that we are conscious?

If we can't be aware of it, then don't waste time trying. We say we are conscious because it is a word we have carefully defined to describe one of our characteristics. Extrapolations of the definition through endless levels of imagining can easily become an endless waste of time.

isferno
2004-Oct-09, 02:00 AM
Rahuldandekar, If I'm correct, then you should be aware of the next rung of consciousness, and maybe even two, though of which you have problems using those consciousnesses yourself.

In terms of chess, I can say that you might play and win a game, but ...
know that another can win from you every time they play against you.
You might be aware how they do it, though incapable of doing the same thing, except for a decade long study.

As for the mosquito, it stands far from grasping the term "chess" at all.

kashi
2004-Oct-09, 02:53 AM
Other topics have been started on this idea in the past. It's an interesting subject. Experiments have shown that very few animals are able to recognise themselves as distinct from the rest of the universe. They test this by putting a blob of red plasticine on a gorilla's head without it noticing, and then putting the animal in front of a mirror. If it sees itself with the red thing on its head, it will pick it off with its hand. If it does not make the connection between itself and the image in the mirror it will not pick if off. Only Orang-utans, gorillas, a couple of species of chimp, dolphins and humans are able to recognise themselves in mirrors.

What science is now starting to suggest however, is that it is humans and the half a dozen or so other species experiencing "consciousness" or "self awareness" are in fact the ones that are disillusioned with reality (not the animals who are blissfully unaware of their existence as anything more than a chemical system). As Buddhists have been suggesting for a long time, consciousness is quite probably an illusion that we have developed for evolutionary purposes, which has obviously aided our survival (so fara nuclear war could still prove this wrong). Think about how we identify ourselves (our name, our job, our values and ideals etc.); all of these things are really fabrications that exist as a result of this illusion of self awareness. All of the ways we define "ourselves" are really just artificial constructs of our chemical brain. They will cease to exist when we die. Consciousness is an illusion. It is an illusion that keeps existing and re-existing once a child's brain develops sufficiently (usually at around 1-2 years of age I think).

I would like to suggest that because the way in which we define ourselves within consciousness is illusionary, reincarnation is indeed scientifically possible without the existence of a soul or another levels of existence. Basically what Im saying is that if we stop thinking of humans as discreet entities with individual consciousness, and start thinking about consciousness as merely a Universal phenomenon (which is an illusion), than reincarnation is no longer restricted by the need for some kind of transfer to take place from one individual to another. We are just chemicals, and chemicals that have an elaborate series of reactions that enable consciousness to exist. This phenomenon WILL re-exist, but since the way we define ourselves is illusionary, WE will cease to exist as we might think. Hence reincarnation is irrelevant because our memory, values etc. will be different. Nothing really remains apart from the (false) experience of consciousness itself. That is because there IS nothing in the first place. The animal who doesn't think that it is independent from the surrounding Universe has the truth we are looking for.

StarLab
2004-Oct-09, 04:38 AM
Kashi, are you saying that the individual is not "unique?" That sounds a bit pessimistic to me, personally...OK, so memory disappears after we die...It's a bit depressing, but I'm sixteen so I'm vulnerable to this, now that I understand "reality." Please do not bring this up again so pessimistically.

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-09, 07:12 AM
You know Starlab, Kashi is probably right. Don't get deppressed over it though. I am also only 16, and I have thought over it too ( used to get deppressed) , but I have got over it now. Don't worry.

If we have an illusion of consciousness, then might it even exist i the universe? You know, beings aware of their own existence.

And can anyone define (presicely) consciousness for me? A conceptual definition, not based on humans alone. I'm trying to thin k about it, you can help me.

Kashi , you may be correct, and anyone got any reactions to his post?

astromark
2004-Oct-09, 08:26 AM
:huh: Consciousness, An awarness of reality, The reallization of ones insignifagance. Bravo.. and yes all true I'm afraid. All that information, and all your conscence gone at the moment of your brains inactivaty. Death.
But before you get all moudlum and depressed about all this concider that at least the human mind has the abilaty to concider these ideas.
I have made this point previously, and its that ;
We are not so cleaver. We have not identified the thought process other than reconise veriouse parts of the brain become more or less active at diferent times under difering sercomestancess ( whew ).I need to replace my spelling hard drive...
We have not been able to comunicate with this planets other larg brained beings.
Technical advancment does not measure intelagance. A dolphine has not built the nuclear generator, becouse it doesent need one...

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-09, 02:05 PM
I think we have defined consciousness only in human terms, and that limits the application of the definition.

According to me, consiousness is something which helped mankind in the course of evolution, and without it, society would have been impossible. That quality manifest itself in the awareness of individual existence ( an awareness that may be false ), and which helped to make laws in order to gaurentee everyone equal right of existence in a large group, and due to which humans have survived catastrophe for so long. But if we measure it in terms of it's ( maybe false ) particular manifestation only , we will not gain an insight into the consciusness of other living beings in the universe. Consciouness may have shown itself in other forms too, and we may not consider beings possesing those qualities conscious, when the really are.

Consciousness is an important quality. We always mention " consciouness" as an defining charecteristic of alien civilisations. Maybe they possess a 'group conscousness' too.

The problem is , like always, of definition.

Rajiv
2004-Oct-09, 05:10 PM
Supposing universe is information ( i have already used this cliche elsewhere ) then leach individual life is a subset of the universe (also a bunch of information ) capable of interacting (processing ) another set of subsets of the universe ( perhaps its immediate surroundings ) to ensure its continuance ( survival ). The basic obejctive of life itself is survival - down from the tiniest virus to the highest intelligence.
Again going by the same suppositions life can be graded in terms of capabilities to process the same information - this grading can be termed as intelligence. So a mosquito can be termed as more 'intelligent' than an amoeba. A bird more 'intelligent' than a mosquito. A dog more 'intelligent' than a bird. And a man more 'intelligent' than a dog.
In the natural progression of things - life ( an information ) reaches a state of awareness about itself as against the rest of the universe ( another jumble of pieces of information) and is able to speculate reasons for its own existance. I suppose that would be what consiousness is (badly explained though )
And yes this does leave a tantalizing possibility open - that of an even more intelligent - 'hyperconscious' forms of life - when compared to us humans

kashi
2004-Oct-10, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by StarLab@Oct 9 2004, 03:38 PM
Kashi, are you saying that the individual is not "unique?" That sounds a bit pessimistic to me, personally...OK, so memory disappears after we die...It's a bit depressing, but I'm sixteen so I'm vulnerable to this, now that I understand "reality." Please do not bring this up again so pessimistically.
In the West, I think we naturally tend to get depressed about the thought of not being individual. I know I do. We a brought up in a way that teaches us to believe that what we are doing is special. When I explored these ideas, I reacted in the same way (and still do, after all I'm only 3 years older than you starlab). I don't think there is really a need to be pessimistic about this.

Saying that consciousness is an illusion does not mean that we are not unique. Indeed the chemical properties of our brain differ from each other genetically in a way that makes us 100% unique. The "consciousness" we experience is no doubt altered in a way as a result (eg. some people think more logically and others more emotionally). All I'm saying is that this consciousness and these thoughts themselves are artificial. In other words, the way our brain processes information is a quantifiable chemical process, but the "experience" of consciousness itself is an illusion and doesn't really mean anything.

Just think...who would you be without your thoughts? That answer is, the exact same person. You are pessimistic because you are attached to your thoughts (and we all are maybe with the exceptions of Buddhist monks). Thoughts don't really mean anything so clinging to them is like clutching at straws.

Everyone is vulnerable to this starlab. You'll get over it.

kashi
2004-Oct-10, 10:05 AM
Here is an interesting topic that I started before you joined the forum starlab:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...p?showtopic=980 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=980)

It is about how life may have started from simple self-replicating molecular systems...much less complicated than the walking, breathing, "thinking" beings we encounter on a daily basis now. I originally linked to an article by Harry Foundalis, a cognitive scientist from Indiana University. I managed to convince him to reply to some people's comments. Well worth a read.

Josh
2004-Oct-10, 11:34 PM
I'm enjoying reading this topic. I started a similar one a long while ago here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1697&hl=cosmological%20expansion&st=0) with the same questions. A few good insights there if you want to take a look.

StarLab
2004-Oct-11, 04:27 AM
Well, what have we done in symbiosis with nature that other organisms haven't? I think that that's not entirely the best approach; we've separated ourselves from nature, or rather took control of it. Our symbiosis with wolves became our taming of dogs. Our use of horses became a backyard activity.

If one looks more carefully, deeply, closely, one can clearly see that maybe what separates ourselves from others is the fact that we can't survive without technology, or at least technological advances. Once we took that first step, we've had no choice but to go the full way. In other words, simplicified (new word! :lol:), the objective of the preexisting matrix was to discover itself (as Carl Sagan so sagely said), but with the drawback of us having to leave our cradle we call Earth.

Josh
2004-Oct-11, 05:34 AM
Just a point of clarification ... humans didn't domesticate dogs... they did all the domesticating. When it comes down to it, they found that the best way to get food was to be around people and act cute.

I think the point though, StarLab, was that controlling nature isn't the best avenue of existence anyway. Living in harmony with nature - living with nature instead of living off it - makes more sense for us and all the other species. We, as a species, seem to be consciously ignorant of that.

ferg.c.
2004-Oct-11, 09:46 AM
Going back to the dictionary def.

1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause

We seem to forget that we use a frame work of "utility" in broad sense when we observe an external object. The mosquito thinks of us a source of food and not as a friendly guy to chat with. and we in turn ask ourselves what can the mosquito do for us (A. it can bite you so you kill it if you not a Buhddist, Karma Yogi etc.).
This colouration of our consciousness can never be escaped and is the barrier to communication between the "levels" of consciousness.
If you could think (and mean realy think) what the mosquito thinks and not just a human asspumtion of what the mosquito thinks you would probally start making tiny holes in your skin and drinking your own blood saying to yourself how is it possible that these humans dont drink their blood!

GOURDHEAD
2004-Oct-11, 02:22 PM
Even the Buddhist, in order to live and have her being, must possess an immune system that constantly destroys microbic life. The biosphere is populated with many objects that survive if and only if they consume other members of the system without which process there would be no biosphere. I favor respecting life as much as we know how within the constraints of those processes that ensure our survival.

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-13, 02:28 PM
When you throw away your computer, do you get a sense of destroying life? But when you kill a fly? Is there a difference in the level of consciousness in a fly and a computer? Is a fly more alive than a compputer?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Oct-13, 05:46 PM
Is a fly more alive than a computer?

Yes.

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-14, 07:39 AM
Why? Does it have a better sense of being alive? I think that if a computer were proggrammed to 'live' like a fly , It definitely would.

isferno
2004-Oct-14, 10:16 AM
I would be happy enough if they programmed the end of the power cable to be a fly.
This way I can throw it out of the window to search for "food".

suntrack2
2004-Oct-15, 09:41 AM
rahul,human brain is just like a 'fly', that can fly everywhere,on land, in sky, in whole of this universe, in paradise too, computer is a small image of this brain.

sunil

StarLab
2004-Oct-16, 01:06 AM
A computer cannot exist on its own...we have to tell it what to do in order for it to do something...

TheThorn
2004-Oct-16, 04:10 AM
Let me add a different point of view.

I think in terms of models. Actually, we all think in terms of models, but that's another matter. I mean I'd analyze this question in terms of the models various species use to operate.

A fly has a certain kind of model that it uses to respond to the Universe - a very simple model. It's pretty well all hard coded - a static model, all instinct. It reacts to external stimuli exactly the same way every time. Computers behave like this too, and it's pretty low on the "consciousness" scale.

Higher up the ladder, we find animals who have models that are more adaptable. They can learn from experience. They have instincts too, but their behaviour can also modify itself, based on things that have happened to them in the past. Dogs are like this, and even some cats. ;) My dog knows not to run out in front of a car because he did it once, and it was unpleasant. No fly is going to pick up that trick. They're conscious on a higher level than a fly, but they still have problems reacting to novel situations - things they haven't encountered before and that their instincts don't prepare them for.

Further up the consciousness scale, are the chimps and others that are self aware. Their model of the universe contains a copy of themselves (so they can look in the mirror and understand that red thing is on their own head). They seem to understand that their own actions affect the universe around them, and they can factor that in to their behaviour, even in novel situations. For instance, they have been observed to make tools at times. They learn like a dog, and they have instincts too, but we credit them with a higher level of consciousness, and I think it's because they use a different kind of model.

Then there's us. Our model of the universe contains a copy of ITself. We can think about our consciousness. More importantly from a social point of view, we understand that other humans are also conscious in the same way, and we can project our own models into their heads, and predict how they are going to behave, even in completely novel situations, by considering how WE would act in that situation. That gives us empathy, and things like the Golden Rule. The fact that our model of the universe is capable of modelling itself is the only reason we're having this discussion. That's what makes our model of the universe a "mind".

I think at each step up this chain, there is a difference of kind in between the models. Within each group, there are differences of degree, more developed and less developed models, but the difference between a fly and a dog is not degree.

And asking any of us to consider what the next level of model would look like, is like asking a fly to understand how a dog learns.

Josh
2004-Oct-16, 06:19 AM
The only difference between us and other primates (apes in particular) is our effect on our surroundings. Chimps, orangutans, gorillas and (especially) bonobos exhibit those same social behaviours we do: they play and laugh together, they comfort each other when sick, they have social structure, they can work as individuals or work as groups when hunting, they live in communities that are made up of family groups.

I've seen chips and baboons meet up and sit around socialising (grooming each other and playing). They have empathy and know what sorts of things are going to get them into trouble.

So they can't talk like we can. It seems that that's the only thing that makes them lower on the consciousness scale to most people. We have no idea if a gorilla laying down in the highlands is looking up at the sky wondering where the stars came from and what makes the moon move across the sky ... no one's asked.

If the definition of consciousness is based on technology and bookable learning, on destruction of the environment and waging war on our own and other species, on good achievements and bad, then yes, we are far more advanced than any other creature on the planet. But that seems to be a very human-centric view of things. It's understandable that in everyday life we'd consider ourselves the centre of the universe ... but when asking this very question on consciousness it's the perfect time to finally and at least try to look at it from an unbiased point of view.

zephyr46
2004-Oct-16, 06:32 AM
A few people here have discounted the idea of a higher consciousness. I would say we are evolving an expanded or expectational consoucness.

Awareness of self, awareness of others, we are evolving an awareness of needs beyond the immediate, ie the first need we have is to breath, to breath, when need trees, trees are far from self aware (well, I think most people would agree with that!), but beyond food and shelter, it is a high level of awareness that allows us to percieve this, to be conscious of needs that are not immediatily obvious.

So the human actions of preserving habitats that are surpulflous to us, but are neccessary to preserve biodiversity is a consciousness that has evolved from the industrial revolution. One, as many say, we are still evolving.

I think with the internet, we are also expanding our consicousness. Studies of patterns in nature, the Solar Cycle, El Nino/Ninia, concentrations of atmospheric carbon from Ice Cores, satelite images.

To be consicous of this has been the result of technological developement, Tools. To take this in, and then formulate actions based upon such knowlege is either and expanded consciousness, a virtual consciousness or more controversially a Hybrid Consciousness, the Cyborg.

When we drive a car, are we the biological or nuerological component of a meltalic life form? Our behavour is changed. We act differently, we compensate for the cars abilty, and the loss of some of our own qualities.

The Car Consciousness, for example, will run over a dog or a snake, a human will tend to relate very differently, avoiding, cautiously examining or patting.

it is a very interesting subject. In early history, human interations with nature were mediatied by gods and spirits, now we have scientific nomenclature (names) rather than spiritual. An awarness of the whole earth ecosystem has a hybrid consciousness, Gaia, the earth as a whole system, that we are just a part of. Some claim this is a Higher Consciousness.

As far as feeling inferior goes, I like to remember Zaphod Beeblebrox (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A607727), from the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy. He was put in a machine that showed the individual, to exact scale with the rest of the Universe, this was an exercise in punishment of the worst kind, because it showed how truly insignificant that being was, it useally condemed its victems to insainty and a huge inferiority complex, Zaphod came out smiling, and said it was cool, he found out what a "Truely Unique individual he was".

Don't believe the hype, we are all capable of making different sets of decisions that no one else but ourselves will make, this quality may even present itself with clones, I hope!

StarLab
2004-Oct-16, 04:43 PM
Thorn, Ian malcolm says: A small, slight change in one species' behavior can wipe out an entire ecosystem.

And Zephyr, Ian malcolm says: The internet is the end of innovation.


What do you guys think about that?

mercury
2004-Oct-17, 05:10 AM
I feel consciousness and intelligence are well related. Every living thing that has genetic material and the machinery to use it is intelligent, that is it has the basic power to think how to obtain food, etc. Intelligence is the ratio of brain weight to body weight. However consciousness can be psychological condition defined by the English philosopher John Locke as "the perception of what passes in a man's own mind." The method employed by most early writers in observing consciousness was introspection-looking within one's own mind to discover the laws of its operation. Thus conscious beings are always developing and discovering more and more scientific knowledge. So you can call the ancient civilizations as conscious but not the birds that have roamed the skies for so many years. The birds are simply intelligent.

Betelgeuse
2004-Oct-17, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by zephyr46@Oct 16 2004, 06:32 AM
Don't believe the hype, we are all capable of making different sets of decisions that no one else but ourselves will make, this quality may even present itself with clones, I hope!
Now, back to the quote, a clone to me would be conscious, but it wouldn't be alive.

Back to something starlab said about having a mind of your own - that clone wouldn't have a mind of it's own and to me, it wouldn't therefore be alive - conscious but not alive.

I hope this isn't going off topic slightly, but, what I'm saying should relate to the topic ond what exactly consciousness is. I'll start with saying that there is a great difference between being conscious and being alive.

Some poor old man lying on a hospital bed - just lying there, reading a book, knowing it'll be the last book he's going to read, well, this old man is conscious. He's breathing etc like the rest of us, but he isn't alive. He isn't alive like a young child or even an old person enjoying themselves is he?



Hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Rigel.
:blink:

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-17, 10:30 AM
Rigel, you are using a different definition of "alive". If a person is alive, he is breathing, and he is thnking ( atleast in case of humans). So, isn't the old man alive?

A clone is alive as well as conscious, because although he has the same brain and genes as another person, He was raised in different circumstances, and his thinking pattern changes. If a rich person was raised in poor circumstainces, he would think differently than he does as he is. Take Identical twins. Same genes, but they can be very different.

Betelgeuse
2004-Oct-17, 01:18 PM
"rahuldandekar" I am meerly trying to make a point and give you my opinion. Everyone has their opinion and I apologize from the heart if mine is not what you're looking for.

I'm trying to tell you that I believe that something that is conscious is different to something that is alive.

I believe that something that's alive has something to offer - something pure, or some sort of magical soul. (I hope I haven't cheesed you off). Something that's conscious but not alive is just there to me. Yes, I realise that it's still breathing etc.

I'll try again.

Consciousness is the ability of an organism to react in certain ways to stimuli, to behave so as to maximize the number of its descendants, or to maintain its sensitivity to its own situation. But those are objective qualities of living creatures. Somewhere else, these qualities of consciousness could differ - greately.

I apppologize if it's not what you're looking for,
Rigel
:(

StarLab
2004-Oct-17, 04:23 PM
He was raised in different circumstances, and his thinking pattern changesThinking pattern? No, processing pattern. Semantics matters, people! If we call it a thinking pattern, we refer to human thought processes. Processing pattern, which is a more generalized term, refers to all live. Thinking is just the human version of processing information taken in from the enviroment.

astromark
2004-Oct-17, 08:53 PM
:rolleyes: You are getting to it... If you have ever watched a child learn at the most basic leval, you see this conciousness develope. When a child at say fifteen mounths to twenty mounths develop they are processing information at great speed. ' This conciousness descusion is not really revalant to finding alian intelagance,' Is that where we started this thread?... back to my child, you can litraly see the child making descisions and strugling to understand the language herd and sights seen. As for clonning-- try this, the clone of Adolf Hitler may be a pacifist or budest monk. We are the sum of our sercomstances, not our genes.
The genetics may well dictate your form, but not your mind... :unsure:

StarLab
2004-Oct-18, 12:54 AM
Yes, I agree...circumstances, appreciation, and empathy.

zephyr46
2004-Oct-18, 02:23 AM
Astromark (http://www.onelook.com/) :)
You could try typing your responses into word and using the spell check, thats what I have to do.

Starlab

Ian malcolm ?

I haven't heard of him, Donna Haraway (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html) is where I get my ideas about the cyborg.

I don't think the internet has killed much except some of the neccesity to move.

I think there may some pause in innovation as we are absorbed by the novelty of it, and in particular the evolution of the semantic web. We have yet to figure what its capabilities are, or what it is or will be.

Innovation, is generally immprovementsw in existing systems, so, the sematic web, when it takes off, is an innovation of the internet.

I think so long as we have situations that can be improved by technology, we will always have invention and innovation.

I think there is a political dimension that is of far more concern. Privacy and the rise of the virtual poll. Big Brother, Idol any of these reality shows where the public votes demonstrates a trend towards the poltical mechanisms of democracy, we loose accountabilty over poll results, we loose civil liberties.

I am no conspiracy theorist, they don't interest me, but the evolution of democracy in this age does interest me.

I fhave frequently mentioned star trek, first contact, the economy is based on knowlege and exploration, I can't see such a social evolution under the constraints of the current market based economy. In this economy, I do see the end of innovation, it is constrained by market forces and religion.

There are many pros and cons. As far as consciousness goes in this time, I believe we have an intellectually regressive media and an education system that communicates social divides (class system) rather than incouraging innovation. The internet is the most progressive, innovative tool we have at the moment, but the contraining forces of the market threaten it, almost as much as those who abuse this resource, child porn, terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, spammers and prolific bussiness ownership and advertising.

I don't know if that is an answer or just a whole lot of questions, what do you think?

StarLab
2004-Oct-18, 05:29 AM
Well, Ian malcolm was the Chaotician of Jurassic Park...perhaps now you'll remember him...

And by the end of innovation he meant what you said, that it negates human necessity to "move around"...strictly, that humans now function as one big global group rather than distinct individual ones, thus negating our chances of survival. In addition, what is more common on the net: chat rooms and spyware, or forums such as this?

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-20, 10:11 AM
You're right, zephyr, humans are using the good things for bad pupposes. Maybe a little right use of emphathy and intelligence would help.

Anyway, I'm still not convinced a fly has a higher consciousness level than a computer. Can anyone explain why we say the fly has a higher level? I think a computer would do everything a fly could, if programmed.

Betelgeuse
2004-Oct-20, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by rahuldandekar@Oct 20 2004, 10:11 AM
I'm still not convinced a fly has a higher consciousness level than a computer. Can anyone explain why we say the fly has a higher level? I think a computer would do everything a fly could, if programmed.
I totally agree!
:)

Apollo123
2004-Oct-21, 02:28 AM
I think a computer would do everything a fly could, if programmed.


I think we are underestimating the fly and it's design. We would be hard pressed to build a computer that could fly, generate it's own energy, search for food, and lay eggs to reproduce itself. We might be able to simulate some of those activities, but to do them all would take a pretty sophisticated computer ... wouldn't it?

Consciousness, to me, is where our thoughts, the images and sounds we see and hear inside our heads, occurs. If our thoughts are illusions, then consciousness probably is too ... but think about this ... the car was a thought in someones head before it became reality. Thoughts not only tell us how to react to our environment, but are also the starting point of everything we have ever created.

Was the thought of the car real or not? I say that thoughts are real. I can decide what to think, and hear inside my head. If I want to create a picture of an apple I can do it. I don't know how I do it, but I know that I can. The image that I see, occurs in consciousness, wherever that is. When we can answer what a thought is, we will be closer to understanding consciousness.

To say that a thought is just an electochemical reaction in the brain is, I think, missing the point. The brains electrochemical activity indicates that thoughts are occurring, but are not the thoughts themselves ... in my opinion.

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-21, 05:48 PM
I agree with you, apollo. I have been saying this since the forum started, but you sure put it in the right words.

So, what is a thought? The reason we feel consciousness is diferent from thoughts. Thoughts are the products of certain processes in the brain. In those processes , they are transformes into something that makes them we feel. What is it? Is is exclusive to us humans ? Or is it exclusive to natural life? ( As opposed to artificial life. )
Maybe it is exclusive to natural life, and that is why we cannot prepare artificial life. Robots may be able to think, but to feel thought the way we do, to experience a sensation of 'living' is far from what they can do.

Something we have- something that helps us to feel our world - makes us 'life' . What is it?

StarLab
2004-Oct-21, 08:00 PM
See I, Robot starring Will Smith.

Apollo123
2004-Oct-22, 02:37 AM
rahuldanekar



So, what is a thought? The reason we feel consciousness is diferent from thoughts. Thoughts are the products of certain processes in the brain. In those processes , they are transformes into something that makes them we feel.


I agee with the first part, thoughts and consciousness are not the same thing. You can experience consciousness without thoughts ... it is difficult but can be done, but you cannot experience thoughts without consciousness.

I'm not sure that thoughts are the products of processes in the brain though. I think they are generated by brain processes, and a brain is necessary (perhaps) for thoughts to occur, but something causes the thought to occur in the first place. What is that something? Some might claim that it is the environment, but studies have been done where people are put into tanks of water at body temperature, all noise, all sights and all environmental stimuli ( that we are aware of anyway) are eliminated and we can still think thoughts ... we can and do choose what to think and can do so (but don't always) in spite of the environmental stimuli that are occurring. What is the "we" that is choosing, and how does it cause the thought to occur in the first place?

Once a thought does occur, it's character, whether it is a sight or sound, can be determined by where the electrochemical process (that indicates the thought has occurred) happens in the brain. In other words there are brain centers for sight, sound, memory etc., but these just indicate that thoughts of a certain type are occuring, they don't indicate the content, the specific sight or sound, of the thought.

I think that is also the difference between a fly and a computer. There is an interpreter of enviromental stimuli in the fly that allows it to react, to move, to feed, to reproduce, to escape from predators. The environmental stimuli, for example the wind from a hand rapidly approaching, enters the fly through it's senses, it is somehow converted into a message to the fly that danger is approaching, and the fly takes off. A computer can accept environmental stimuli, but it's interpreter is the software, not consciousness. I would claim that the flies consciousness, as minimal as it is, is where the message is interpreted and allows it to react ... a computer's consciousness does not exist, in my opinion.

zephyr46
2004-Oct-22, 03:12 AM
Exactly, a computer can be fitted and programmed with sensor (sound, light, temperature etc), but it cannot sense the need, nor can it design its replacement.

A fly has senses and mobility from evolution. We are, at the end of the day the senses and evolutionary behaviour of the computer.

And look as far as Terminator to see why we are not in a rush to communicate such abilites to computers/machines.

The cyborg theory from Donna Haraway et al, shows that we are acting more for the machine than our own interests. Cars, move us around, but they don't produce air, the contrary, they take our air, trucks, again, transport food, but they do not produce it. We can speed up food production with hydroponics, even replace aspects of the enviroment, but we use electricity that, at the moment, pollutes the air.

The Cyborg as such, can be described as the networks and relationships that Humans have created, it is intrinsic that we support it as it supports some aspects of us, ie, if an Oil reserve runs dry, we must find, again, with the help of aircraft and sensors a replacement, then we must move or construct the Oil rigs and set up new transport routes and Oil refinories.

The Cyborg is the amplification of human need and capability, and yes, certainly this hybrid exists only through Human Collectivity, though to a certain point, humans can and are being replaced at all levels of function. The survey aircraft could operate remotely, the Oil rigs could relocate automatically and the transport ships could run remotely.

This is the nature of the cyborg, it depends on us, the consciousness of all the collective human activity and the ratio of costs and returns, to an extent, shows that we are the lossers in the equation, though, it could all collapse with energy depletion, though solar power (aka the Matrix) might render us surpurflous.

Not only is the fly looking less dependant of us, but also less threatening.

When we try and squat a fly, does it know? Or is its flying to avoid us just instinct?

I think the point is that a fly hasn't evolved much over the last few millions of years, where as the computer is evolving within our lifetimes, but howmuch is this to do with us?

Darth Maestro
2004-Oct-22, 06:30 AM
I think that conscious starts when any living creature supports higher brain function and has to manipulate it's surroundings to survive.

Even instinct driven creatures, although not intellectual or innately cerebral are conscious of their surroundings. Thus conscious.

rahuldandekar
2004-Oct-26, 01:13 PM
Our body's white blood cells attack any outside bacteria in our body. And we don't even know it. Food it circulated around the body by blood. We're not usually aware of it. Our body functons are regulated by hormones and enzymes. We didn't know it before we took biology.

In a beehive, the workers sting the outside organisms to protect the hive. ( In termite hill , specailised termites do this.) The workers transport food around the hive. Pheronomes do the jobs of co-ordination, etc.

Are the bees at a rudimentary form of group consciousness?

Betelgeuse
2004-Oct-28, 05:51 PM
I came across a book yesterday while browsing in a bookshop - "Frequently asked questions in science" - something like that, and it had a section on consciousness - I only began reading this section but the ideas were pretty original.

I din't buy the book but I should think it's worth looking at. Anyone know which one I mean?

Sorry about the abruptness of this post!

Regards
Rigel
:)

zephyr46
2004-Oct-29, 03:59 AM
rahuldandekar, our body, is a more like a colony, There are many Bacteria that form a part of the digestive process, parasites, worms :)

I think the line between life forms in the Tree of life is drawn at viruses, they usually have a gentic connection to their host and cannot reproduce seperately.

There is a fascinating doco on SBS at the moment little buggers (http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=794), I have seen the episodes on mites and fleas. I can't help wondering if they are aware that they are living on us? :D

Our relation to the planet is an interesting comparison, now we know we are on a sphere floating, or falling through space, and we are not the center of the universe.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Oct-29, 11:55 AM
I think the point is that a fly hasn't evolved much over the last few millions of years, where as the computer is evolving within our lifetimes, but how much has this to do with us?

Quite a bit. By not making it illegal to eat or smoke flies, they have persisted. Without us computers would not be; as pruning hooks and wrenches extend our motor skills, computers extend our minds.

StarLab
2004-Nov-01, 02:00 AM
Wait a minute...if consciousness is only an illusion, how come we&#39;re the only species to possess this consciousness? :blink: :huh: :unsure: <_< :ph34r: :o :mellow: -_- :wacko:

zephyr46
2004-Nov-01, 02:46 AM
I think cats possess Illusions of grandeur (thats why I like them more than dogs&#33;), is that evidence of consciousness? Self consciousness? I think gorrillas and Chimps recognise there own reflection, and birds?

Flies clean themselves, they are among the cleanest of all organisms, Why? Do they know they will get sick if they don&#39;t?

If we expect flies to build a computer before we recognise them as conscious beings we are suffering delusions of consciousness and what it is.

When you try and squat a fly, it will try and avoid it. Put it down to instinct, but those *******s are here wether we like it or not, just because we can&#39;t communicate in there langauge doesn&#39;t mean they haven&#39;t been trying to communicate with us.

We can&#39;t dance with Bees, why should we expect them to learn to type?

We don&#39;t sing Whale songs, they swap songs.

Simbiotic relationships are everywhere in Nature, that is why you get such spiritually conscious theories as Gaia (http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html). Universal Consiousness no, we can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t mean its not there. So what of the Fly? Automatum or self aware individual?

This Artifial life site (http://www.aridolan.com/default.aspx) may be of interest to some of you, for a different slant on consicousness :) .

ASEI
2004-Nov-01, 02:57 AM
If by conciousness, you mean self awareness, then many animals fall in that category. They have to be aware that their bodies, senses, ect are seperate entities than other objects or creatures. They have to be able to percieve the difference between "them" and "not them". They probably also have to be aware of their relation with respect to the world around them. I don&#39;t think this is an illusion. After all, it does have boundaries. We are not aware of ourselves when asleep. Any actions we take then are automatic responses to stimuli. We can distort or destroy our state of conciousness using drugs/lobotomy ect. Thus the word unconcious.

Many animals (though insects are a little fuzzy in this category) are aware in this manner. That doesn&#39;t necessarily mean they are intelligent (able to plan, design, ect), just concious.

Flies cleaning themselves is probably the result of a rudimentary neural network triggering, not necessarily self awareness of state. Dogs or cats cleaning themselves are probably due to their awareness of their condition though.


We can&#39;t dance with Bees, why should we expect them to learn to type? We don&#39;t. A bee is far too dumb to learn language relationships. Insects in a hive behave the way they do because the chemical state of their environment triggers reactions in their brains, not because of intelligent purpose. And the behavior of a bee hive is too much of an instinctive reaction to communicate or learn. A bee is probably not self aware. A bee hive is definitely not self aware.

zephyr46
2004-Nov-01, 03:08 AM
Exactly&#33;

A colony of Ants versus a praying mantis.

There are a lot of ducks here where I live, I have a duck pond outside my window and there are Three families of ducklings. A dog chased them, scattering the ducklings. This speices of duck sometimes adopts each others ducklings, I am told, though on this occasion there was none of that, the parents were vicious in driving away ducklings that weren&#39;t there own.

The ducklings that were seperated had no problems forming up with other lost ducklings.

Are we talking about a natural programme here, instinct or are we talking about a simple duck culture?

I find this area interesting, because here in Australia the Aboriginals wheren&#39;t recognised as people till early last century and didn&#39;t get the vote till the late sixties.

I don&#39;t expect any answers, but the discussion is great :)

ASEI
2004-Nov-01, 03:16 AM
Of course, one thing that can be said about the lowliest of insects: they still behave much better on average, and interact much more functionally with random environments than the smartest of our computer programs. That is changing though. With neural networks and genetic algorithms we are developing artificial intelligences and learning programs much more adept than top-down, rigid computer programs.

Imagine if the mars rovers had the neural ability of the common housefly&#33; We&#39;d definitely have something there.

zephyr46
2004-Nov-01, 03:16 AM
We don&#39;t. A bee is far too dumb to learn language relationships. Insects in a hive behave the way they do because the chemical state of their environment triggers reactions in their brains, not because of intelligent purpose. And the behavior of a bee hive is too much of an instinctive reaction to communicate or learn. A bee is probably not self aware. A bee hive is definitely not self aware.

I disagree, my understanding was that bees communicated distance and directions through their dance.

And on the design front, termites are still building far more sofisticated envromentally appropriate, energy effecient designed towers that they have been for many a thousand years.

Crocodile nests are also set for a certain temperature.

Beavers with their lodges and Dams, significantally altering their enviroment.

All instinct? What is consiousness if not instinct? We aren&#39;t talking about intelligence and the ablitiy to learn something different or to rapidly adapt to a chaged set of circumstances.

ASEI
2004-Nov-01, 03:19 AM
Ian malcolm says: The internet is the end of innovation. Ian Malcom is full of @#&#036;@. The internet is a wonderful means of communication. The fact that it&#39;s out of control just helps the innovation continue.

It is the best expression of the first amendment available: anyone can say anything on any subject to anybody who cares. The only people with something to lose are those with inferior ideas that they are unwilling to subject to review or something to hide. Almost any side of any issue, almost any idea can be found on the internet. The best ones prosper, and the worst ones are marginalized in free exchange.

zephyr46
2004-Nov-01, 03:19 AM
ASEI, you may find this thread interesting.
AI and robotic explorers (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2715)

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-01, 05:17 AM
A bee is far too dumb to learn language relationships. Insects in a hive behave the way they do because the chemical state of their environment triggers reactions in their brains, not because of intelligent purpose.

I don&#39;t think that is so. In our own body, it is the nerves that think and relay responses. Our brain cells do not &#39;think&#39;, it is just some electrical processes taking place in them that produce the sensation of thinking.
Point is, even humans do not have a &#39;conscious&#39; part in the body. Even the brain acts according to instinct, but the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The brain is not self conscious, it, in association with heart, endocrine glands, blood, body cell, muscles, produces an organism ( a &#39;colony&#39; of non-conscious organs) which is conscious.

What if the beehive as a hole displays some sort of consciousness. Self-awareness, maybe, of it being different from other beehives. ??

astromark
2004-Nov-01, 11:36 AM
:huh: I have observed a controled experoment where bees were showen some sun flowers.. eight minuts later the whole hive was doing a very efficiant turn around. they learn, comunicate and plan. They look aware to me. Spiders are great problem solvers, well up to planing and exacuting a compicated set of movments to achieve an end. Squid, Octipus, Bevers, and bees. lets include the trees a... aware or is that awere... all are. and this is a measure of what?
Whatch a mouse comunicate and find a way to food. birds, fish, dogs.
what more do you want. proof. :rolleyes:

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-09, 05:15 AM
The other day, I saw a dying dog. I mean, it had had an accident and was lying in the middle of the road. It was a street dog. It was bleeding, but still, it was turning its head upwards and barking loudly. And the other dogs were barking and sort of circling around him, like they knew he was going to die. They were like, calling out for help.

Dogs may not recognise themselves in the mirror, but they sure have some kind of consciouness.

Maybe recognising ourselves in the mirror has something to do with intelligence, like figuring out it&#39;s us. Consciousness can be seen in self identity, or maybe the recognition that someone else is not ourselves, and that he has a separate existance. The dogs were barking for the other dog, and the knew it was in trouble. Doesn&#39;t that tell us that dogs have consciousness.

P.S. I do believe that I may have made some mistaken assumptions, but the situation was like this : A dying dog, lying opn the road, the other dos running around him. All barking, with the wounded dog keeping his head erect.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-09, 03:35 PM
We think we are conscious. If you hit a mosquito to kill it, do you ever think if he is conscious of his being alive or not? What about the relationship between consciousness and intelligence? Chimps are conscious to an extent, and are also intelligent to an extent. Does that mean consciousness is related to intelligence?

About the mosquito, we say that he is not conscious. Envision an alien who can see us, and comparing us with his robots, he says that his robots are more conscious than us. How would we feel then? We feel that we have made ultimate discoveries about the universe. But have we? Or have we, being just &#39;Robots&#39; , failed to see inside the overlying Relativistic, non-deterministic veil? Are we being bounded by our limited consciousness?
By way of returning from detours, let&#39;s see whether we can focus on the initiating statements/questions. What difference with a distinction are we trying to define? Consciousness, intelligence, and technological competence each come in several levels of realization and mutual interdependence. An important metric for making distinctions is how well the possessor of consciousness can anticipate hazards to its well being over ever increasing volumes of space and intervals of time as well as how creative is its perception of problems and the solutions respective to each.

Mike525
2004-Nov-17, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by rahuldandekar@Oct 8 2004, 10:31 AM
...have we, being just &#39;Robots&#39; , failed to see inside the overlying Relativistic, non-deterministic veil? Are we being bounded by our limited consciousness?

What if there is an upper level of consciousness that we cannot realise? Why, in the first place, do we say that we are conscious?


I&#39;m a newby to this forum but I just want to throw out a few thoughts.

This question was explored by John Lilly when he used the isolation flotation tank. It supposedly cutoff all sensory input to see if there is any form of consciousness or cerebral activity. With no external stimulation he assumed that his mind would shut down and be "coma-like" or unconscious but he found just the opposite.

IMO, I think we are at a critical stage of evolution in regards to our consciousness (both individual and collectively) that involves the evolution of ethical consciousness and of integration consciousness. (encompassing/connecting with inner and outer).

Catalysts such as discovering evidence of life on Mars (even intelligent if a Mars Rover was sent to the Sedonia region) or finding an extrasolar earthlike planet may activate our "genetic memories" or "archetypal memories" of feeling more connected and aware.

I do believe in evolution and in inverse entropy which allows for self aware conscious beings to trancend the chemical body and return to physicalized forms to continue with their evolution. There is a theory that describes the physical as space/time and the metaphysical as time/space and this region is where you experience dreams and the regions that Lilly explored.

this is a great topic and can go on forever...hope it keeps going&#33;

Mike

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-20, 06:57 AM
Society is a must for cultural and scientific evolution. What could a lone man do? What would he invent?

Such things happen in sa beehive too. The reason I am sticking to the hive is that we may find inclings of group consciousness in a hive. It is a society, after all. It adjusts itself to the environment. Defends itself against predators. Distinguished itself from other hive-societies .

What more do we ask for?

StarLab
2004-Nov-20, 05:07 PM
Rahuld, do hive societies ever "overthrow" their queen?

ASEI
2004-Nov-20, 11:01 PM
What could a lone man do? What would he invent? So far, almost every invention has been the concept or idea of a single individual man or woman. Development may take place in groups, but the creative idea does not.

Bees can only behave properly in their hive society because their brains are hardwired to work correctly.


Rahuld, do hive societies ever "overthrow" their queen? Occasionally beehives eat various members, and sometimes there are struggles between one queen and another for dominance. But then again, the "queen" of a hive is not any sort of governing organism. It just has the kids.


What if there is an upper level of consciousness that wwe cannot realise? I don&#39;t really believe that there are very many differences between where we are in terms of conciouness and any immediately higher levels. If conciousness is an awareness of our surroundings, then we can be aware of more or fewer things, we can be aware of a greater volume of material at once, or a lesser volume, and we can be aware of it in degrees of greater or lesser accuracy. Human beings have been able to create instruments to translate and sense things that we cannot sense directly. Though there are limits to how much we can pay attention to at once, it doesn&#39;t usually end up limiting the accuracy with which we percieve the universe.

Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-21, 07:51 AM
I will re-iterate my post ... whenever you have a creature that has higher brain function and that can and has to manipulate it&#39;s surroundings to survive (use legs to move or move wings to fly ... use claws to kill .... stretch head to bite .... change pigment to blend in) ... is essentially conscious. All these creatures need a higher functioning brain in order to work these limbs effectively. The offset of that powerfull brain stems a conscious creature. A plant ... although alive is not conscious

StarLab
2004-Nov-21, 07:56 AM
What could a lone man do? What would he invent?
Brilliant question, and Ian Malcolm has the answer: one person can solve a problem better than two people; two people can solve a problem together with greater agility than fifty people; the more people used to solve a dilemma, the harder it becomes to do so. So, a lone man or woman could do quite a lot.

Darth Maestro
2004-Nov-21, 08:16 AM
Starlab .. great post. To bad our current society doesn&#39;t rely on the inventive drivin person as much as our forefathers 100 years ago. There still are plenty of inventive people now ... but our way of life is dependent on most people being stupid rather than inventive.

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-22, 11:27 AM
No Starlab, I wasn&#39;t talking about mere inventions, I was talking about implementing them too. A person may invent something, but without discussing it with other people, he cannot put it to good use.

Similarly, if a bee discovers a new flower, she cannot reap the benefits alone. She tells other bees, and when they work together,the whole hive is benefitted.

mercury
2004-Dec-18, 02:08 PM
Why does the DNA structure have to possess a double-helix shape? Also why does cytosine stick to guanine and thyamine to adenosine? Can robotic artificial intelligence be similar to consciousness?

Ola D.
2004-Dec-18, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by mercury@Dec 18 2004, 02:08 PM
Why does the DNA structure have to possess a double-helix shape? Also why does cytosine stick to guanine and thyamine to adenosine?
One DNA template is required for replication, transcription and translation. The complementary strand plays no role in these processes, except that in DNA replication it enhances semi-conservative DNA strands; meaning that daughter DNA each has one template from the original mother DNA.

About the nucloetides, they are very specific that they bind according a complementary base pairing. Cytosine to guanine, and thymine to adenine. Why do they pair this way? This depends on the chemical properties of these nucleotides. When paired, cytosine-guanine forms a 3 hydrogen bonds inbetween, and thymine-adenine forms 2 hydrogen bonds.

ChromeStar
2004-Dec-18, 03:30 PM
reply to original question

I&#39;m no expert on the subject, but i find it quiet intriguing. :)

i also find that a lot of the time, when users of the forums (including myself) don&#39;t know enough to comment they use the "line" i&#39;m no expert, but... . so i want to know if any one knows a psychologist or neurologist who can give a good answer ?

if you do, it would be nice if you can get them to give you an answer you can post.

ahrenjb
2005-Jan-12, 04:21 PM
Since the discussion has drifted towards self consious robots let me say this, Wile channel surfing the other night I encountered a special documentary on the subject. I couldn&#39;t resist so I settled down with a bowl of popcorn and watched it. Although it was obviously targeted at people with no knowledge of computing and electronics technology I was able to pick out a couple of good points from it.

One issue that was addressed was the potential of self replicating machines. If a machine was created that used even a simple program to adapt to its eviroment and was able to build more of itself from the materials around it then do you call it consious. If every time it replicated it put all of the things it had learned into the copy and the proscess repeated over and over with the beings becoming more and more "intelligent" each time then where would you say that it has crosse the line from dumb machine into consious being?

Another topic addresed was the topc of "swarm bots". A small community of robots, each with a different special ability. When a task was at hand if one could not complete it then another was called who could. If the task required multile abilities then they worked togehther. If something was faced that they could not complete they would build one that could. A kind of collective consciousness would be formed if they all worked together. And if they saw something that needed to be done that required a sacrifice, of themselves or others, it would be done.

The way I see it these are both relatively possible outcomes of AI robots. So in conclusion I will askthis, If when our machines become better then thier creators in mind, for they have already surpassed us in body and strenth, will they be considered "alive" or will they be the target of jealousness ad spite, leading to our eventual destruction?

GOURDHEAD
2005-Jan-14, 12:26 AM
will they be considered "alive" or will they be the target of jealousness ad spite, leading to our eventual destruction? Not if we keep control of the off switch.

astromark
2005-Jan-14, 02:08 AM
Off switch function ; Delete.

PaPayA
2005-Jan-15, 10:07 AM
I feel that what im about to ask has something to do with consciousness.....Can you move your toes one by one and not together just like your fingers??

astromark
2005-Jan-15, 11:46 AM
yes, with considerable effort. I can. I am aware of the need to focus in order not to let the other toes move in unision. I have learned to tap my toes just like you might with your fingers. I have also tought my self to jugle five golf balls at once. ( its a good party trick. ) None of this makes me a higher being. This thinking question is nieve. Even sheep think and are aware of there seroundings. They seek shelter when it rains. Consciousness, awareness, the thought or thinking proscess. Humanity is not the only creature with this abilaty. There are many birds with seemingly tiny brains, that are well able to problem solve, think., and plan. These two threads, life and consciosness are frought with imotive minefields. I am of the thought that some of the other mamals are smarter than us. They have not developed into tech.,advanced creatures becouse they dont need to. They are happy with thier lot. When we find life in space. It will be alien, diferent, and possibly alarming. While we strugle with explanations of consciousness and the defanition of life. We have no idea what may be waiting for us to find them. I still think the computer will one day quiet soon be discribed as alive, with the abilaty to reproduce, change, concume, and be aware of its envioroment. It may be the best friend we have, or our worst nightmare.

PaPayA
2005-Jan-16, 02:09 AM
you could thats nice....... :D i could not :lol:

ChromeStar
2005-Jan-16, 12:01 PM
I would guess it would have more to do with your body and it&#39;s attributes.

You can&#39;t move your toes if you want to without having muscles to move them.

StarLab
2005-Feb-10, 08:35 PM
Spinell - slow down. <_< :rolleyes: :angry: :blink: :unsure: :ph34r: ;)

vet
2005-Feb-11, 01:18 AM
even bacteria are concious---certainly mosquitoes are. try swatting one that knows you&#39;re coming.

vet
2005-Feb-11, 03:05 AM
consiousness? it&#39;s like the guv and 9/11---one hand forgets the other---by that i mean there is a horrible gulf amongst various areas of science, certainly the &#39;inorganic&#39; vs. &#39;organic&#39;. astronomy is at this time &#39;inorganic&#39;---but every year, more data shows &#39;memory&#39; is inherent in this universe. if you may differentiate &#39;memory&#39; from &#39;conciousness&#39;? i&#39;d like to here how. so your being &#39;alive&#39;? a quanta of a living universe. animism? could be. it&#39;s ancient, doesn&#39;t mean it has no merit---

americans are taught to memorize, not think independently---other nations as well---informal lessons from Sir Fred Hoyle led me to understand respect for such thinking. a perfect example is this: how many of you questioned the Great Descatre&#39;s statement---&#39;I think therefore I am.&#39;? took me a bit, but ultimately, via logic, and common-sense, i saw the error of reasoning. very obvious, when you may &#39;break-out&#39;---Descarte? that dumb? yup pardner---&#39;I think therefore I think.&#39;---that is all may be Proven. what a screw-up for Rene&#39;&#33; and all those teachers. and students memorizing for a test.

ps---this human form was not &#39;built&#39; for anything but space-faring Life from treacherous planets. finis. we get to have fun, achieve immortality---but spending time on &#39;conciousness&#39;? if this place is not &#39;real&#39;, corporeal---i guess something major could come of that---the fact that if my hammer hits my thumb, it really hurts, that is my arguement of being real, and concious.

j0seph
2005-Feb-11, 03:46 AM
I think that misquitos are conscience, but they do not realize that they are, nor do they have the ability to think as flexible as we do, they rely only on self preservation at its purist, they don&#39;t think "what would happen if I did this?" they only know they need to do accomplish a goal, because they are driven too... they dont question it... they dont think about it... its simple

StarLab
2005-Feb-11, 04:55 AM
I think that what separates us from other species is as follows:

Only primates and a few other species recognize themselves in a mirror.
Only primates and a few other species do love for pleasure as well as business.
Only humans have an education system (one might argue a bee hierarchy in this case, but it&#39;ll be a while before a Democratic beehive is found.)

piersdad
2005-Feb-11, 06:44 AM
i think our consiousness is about our ability to predict the future.
a lion walking along a path will see a foot print of its prey and walk on.
a human will see it and predict in their mind where it might be now

we started to bury the dead 20,000 years ago approx and that would be the start of or real consiousness
some animals mourn their dead but humans want to live on in the minds of their family ie the concept of heaven.

kashi
2005-Feb-11, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by piersdad@Feb 11 2005, 05:44 PM
i think our consiousness is about our ability to predict the future.
a lion walking along a path will see a foot print of its prey and walk on.
a human will see it and predict in their mind where it might be now

we started to bury the dead 20,000 years ago approx and that would be the start of or real consiousness
some animals mourn their dead but humans want to live on in the minds of their family ie the concept of heaven.
An interesting contribution piersdad. I think it&#39;s fair to say that consciousness developed earlier than 20000 years ago, as even chimps and orangutans possess it in some primative manifestation.

Burying the dead is a great example of how we use our consciousness, but I don&#39;t think the emergence of this as general practice signals the beginning of consciousness. I should point out that in this day and age many cultures do not bury their dead.

piersdad
2005-Feb-11, 09:38 AM
true kashi
it would be probably religion of sorts that could be the start of our more civilised consiousness.
The wish for life after death..
As we wondered at the complexity of nature we would have concieved that there had to be some sort of grand-daddy some where and we had better pray to him or we might get slapped.
Possibly through religion we gradually developed a community consiousness that payed homage to a more benevalent leader that their present arrogant dickhead

PaPayA
2005-Feb-11, 12:28 PM
from my point of view..........&#39;consiousness is knowledge&#39;

GOURDHEAD
2005-Feb-11, 03:36 PM
from my point of view..........&#39;consiousness is knowledge&#39; And more also.

nomadicdemon
2005-Feb-11, 05:52 PM
This is an interesting topic.....I think consciousness is just able to use the five senses and using your mind to reminisce on the past and beng able to forshadow what&#39;s to come in the future...but also to be conscious you must be able to tell there&#39;s a sub-conscious....without a sub-conscious, where would your conscious be?

vet
2005-Feb-11, 07:54 PM
&#39;the hive&#39; example is clever and studied by various methods. i find it difficult to understand how a &#39;scout&#39; honey-bee, upon finding food, may return, do the &#39;bee-dance&#39; and have the rest follow, without taking conciousness into consideration.

j0seph
2005-Feb-14, 04:21 PM
"&#39;the hive&#39; example is clever and studied by various methods. i find it difficult to understand how a &#39;scout&#39; honey-bee, upon finding food, may return, do the &#39;bee-dance&#39; and have the rest follow, without taking conciousness into consideration." - Vet22

I see what you mean, but that could be emulated with a linear computer program very easily, similar situations already exist, such as "network protocols" finding, retreiving, and communicating information, but yes, I do believe they are conscience :)

vet
2005-Feb-16, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by spinellozone@Feb 11 2005, 09:29 PM
VET22 its easy look at it like this,he considers or examines everything EXCEPT
consciousness.only people question things,other creatures live the answer.
to ask a question is to not know.as experience is to know.
The scout has no need to question who or what he is.HE JUST IS what he experiences.
you are what you eat so to say.luckly for him he cant (understand/eat) words, which are a scent trail of confusion.
only people question things? how does that horse not hit the wrong spot? how do and did english sheep dogs evolve overnight to be born with the ability to know the &#39;whistle&#39;. in a petri dish, how do bacteria know chow is at 3:PM---seems they must be questioning &#39;time&#39;. don&#39;t fret, i almost bought Darwin.

and more than once, i&#39;ve been in stores with huge mirrors and jumped out of my socks, before i saw the reflection was me. i didn&#39;t question---i reacted. w/o long-term memory, i would persist in this behaviour. and probably starve from not catching mice.

your position, from what i may unscramble, that &#39;the bee-dance&#39; &#39;Just Is&#39; has merit via a brit chum, rupert shelkdrake---he would contend this a manifestation of &#39;collective morphic-resonance&#39;---information fields intereacting amonst a super-organism---the hive.

for you, and all, the question becomes is conciousness purely a &#39;social field&#39;? certainly dr. john wheeler and many &#39;copenhagen-school&#39; phyisists would agree. so would the american indian. i don&#39;t know. but i&#39;m workin&#39; on it.

vet
2005-Feb-16, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by vet22+Feb 16 2005, 06:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vet22 @ Feb 16 2005, 06:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinellozone@Feb 11 2005, 09:29 PM
VET22 its easy look at it like this,he considers or examines everything EXCEPT
consciousness.only people question things,other creatures live the answer.
to ask a question is to not know.as experience is to know.
The scout has no need to question who or what he is.HE JUST IS what he experiences.
you are what you eat so to say.luckly for him he cant (understand/eat) words, which are a scent trail of confusion.
only people question things? how does that horse not hit the wrong spot? how do and did english sheep dogs evolve overnight to be born with the ability to know the &#39;whistle&#39;. in a petri dish, how do bacteria know chow is at 3:PM---seems they must be questioning &#39;time&#39;. don&#39;t fret, i almost bought Darwin.

and more than once, i&#39;ve been in stores with huge mirrors and jumped out of my socks, before i saw the reflection was me. i didn&#39;t question---i reacted. w/o long-term memory, i would persist in this behaviour. and probably starve from not catching mice.

your position, from what i may unscramble, that &#39;the bee-dance&#39; &#39;Just Is&#39; has merit via a brit chum, rupert shelkdrake---he would contend this a manifestation of &#39;collective morphic-resonance&#39;---information fields intereacting amonst a super-organism---the hive.

for you, and all, the question becomes is conciousness purely a &#39;social field&#39;? certainly dr. john wheeler and many &#39;copenhagen-school&#39; phyisists would agree. so would the american indian. i don&#39;t know. but i&#39;m workin&#39; on it. [/b][/quote]
thanks for a rather cryptic, but understandable rebuttle---i think you will find my response adequate. and thought provoking---to me, the demarkation point of &#39;in-the-know&#39; is a thorough reading of Sheldrake&#39;s &#39;The Presense of the Past&#39;.

isferno
2005-Apr-04, 12:18 PM
The true misconception I see in this thread is what conscience really means.
Joseph just gave a hint in his reply to VET22.

If you take a simple computer program, you can readily tell that it is not conscience, it can only do as it is pre-programmed to do. (including fuzzy logic etc)


So the Question is:
can a bee (to stick with this example) go beyond its original programming?
From which follows: Are there a limited set of parameters to which a bee can respond?

As you notice, I avoided mentioning the self awareness in a bigger picture. Instead I used the responsiveness to a set of impulses and reactions. With a computer program, the answer to illegal input is a standard message. This could never change, unless you reprogram the program.

With a bee, you would actualy see the same algorythm (responsive reaction towards a certain situation) over and over again if you supply it with the same input. The only variables in these are stimulated associations.
This is somewhat more then a program, but only in the case that it can adjust association variables for greater succes in for example food search.

Though, in this, humans can be programmed too. Brainwashing is the most negative way, rewarding certain behaviour, a positive way.
Even though this is the same as with bees, the difference with humans is that they can go beyond any (childhood/social) pre-gramming and can actualy decide whether or not they accept this pre-programming as benevicial.

StarLab
2005-Apr-09, 03:42 PM
The true misconception I see in this thread is what conscience really means.
Joseph just gave a hint in his reply to VET22.

If you take a simple computer program, you can readily tell that it is not conscience, it can only do as it is pre-programmed to do. (including fuzzy logic etc)


So the Question is:
can a bee (to stick with this example) go beyond its original programming?
From which follows: Are there a limited set of parameters to which a bee can respond?

As you notice, I avoided mentioning the self awareness in a bigger picture. Instead I used the responsiveness to a set of impulses and reactions. With a computer program, the answer to illegal input is a standard message. This could never change, unless you reprogram the program.

With a bee, you would actualy see the same algorythm (responsive reaction towards a certain situation) over and over again if you supply it with the same input. The only variables in these are stimulated associations.
This is somewhat more then a program, but only in the case that it can adjust association variables for greater succes in for example food search.

Though, in this, humans can be programmed too. Brainwashing is the most negative way, rewarding certain behaviour, a positive way.
Even though this is the same as with bees, the difference with humans is that they can go beyond any (childhood/social) pre-gramming and can actualy decide whether or not they accept this pre-programming as benevicial.

So if we were to designate consciousness as thinking for oneself (w/o an outside standard of guidance), then consciousness itself is actually pretty limited. Even we, as humans, are "taught" logic rather than discover it for ourselves.
If a response to a stimulus is not considered intelligence, then the only factor of intelligence left for humans to elevate themselves above nature is the discovery and communicated awareness of our economic system, which allows, in most cases, a cooperativity not seen often among Chordates or any other phylum of life, with the exception of interspecies symbiosis.

isferno
2005-Apr-12, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@Apr 9 2005, 03:42 PM
So if we were to designate consciousness as thinking for oneself (w/o an outside standard of guidance), then consciousness itself is actually pretty limited. Even we, as humans, are "taught" logic rather than discover it for ourselves.
.... etc

There are indeed quite a lot of things we do not have to discover for ourselves again and again.
But there are various things you can choose to do or learn.

Why the interrest in Astronomy and learn? This is already a choice from which you can continue to choose again which knowledge you want to accumulate. Specialise in Solar activity, exo-geology, astrobiology, etc etc.

Which ever choice one makes, this is completely independend on what one&#39;s parents do for a living. There is no Evolutional set programmed what you will become, only what your limits will be at what you can become.

And it doesn&#39;t stop at education or logical determination. Even on the more intuitive side people make choices what to believe or who to follow or in which way to approach people to socialize, etc. completely independend of childhood upbringing. You observe and learn whichever traith you deem usefull to you. Even though many others follow the same line of "self" education, including the mishaps in the learning curve, most of it will be marked as belonging to an individual.


But even so, human consciousness is indeed still limited. I won&#39;t go in a discussion on this though. There is more than enough freedom within one&#39;s limitations. Even the freedom to pout about knowing the exact limitations, which of coarse is also an individual&#39;s traith which might be pursued.

StarLab
2005-Apr-13, 04:08 AM
I&#39;m not talking about choices though, am I? <_< When you talk about choices, true we have the freedom to choose. And that does in fact increase our level of intelligence. Most other species on earth are spurred in their reactions to an external stimulus by some instinctual factor. Humans, though, even through education (which after the first five years becomes a purely homo sapiens experience), have the opportunity to choose. What our species has to realize is the practice of commensalism - self-centrism without exclusion to others&#39; interests and a desire to help others if, in vice versa, there is no detriment to ourselves.

Mr. Smartypants gamer guy
2005-Apr-13, 04:28 AM
consiosness hmm amazing are we all realy useing our consiosness or intelligence to answer this... think about it there are just 4 posibilities. 1 its consiosness 2 its inteligence 3 its both 4 its nethier, nothing, nada, zip, were just pupets folowing an entities comand, were there vidio game, they control uss. or u can use 5 the secret option were actualy not ansering, and this is not real, its all just some elabrit dream... ther was a quote that i herd "were not truely alive untell we dream" well maby thats it???

isferno
2005-Apr-13, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by StarLab@Apr 13 2005, 04:08 AM
What our species has to realize is the practice of commensalism - self-centrism without exclusion to others&#39; interests and a desire to help others if, in vice versa, there is no detriment to ourselves.
Commensalism is not an indication of consciousness. It is only a way of survival.

Part of consciousness is the ability to extrapolate. Based on this you can actively participate on your choices. You might think of it as:
1. Hmm, Where will this study Astronomy lead to ... and
2. This study Astronomy will give me the lead to ...

With Commensalism, you don&#39;t have to make a choice. You only need an ability or thraith to be able to use it or to enforce it, and it can result from 1. (with or without the conscious foretought).

example: Just imagine a bear to whom you throw your sandwhich to keep it busy.
example: Just imagine a swarm of bees and a picnic. You might want to stay out of harms way by placing a plate of honey some distance away.
example: Just imagine a virus which uses your cells as energy source to multiply, but only is succesful if it doesn&#39;t kill of the host(s).

rahuldandekar
2005-Apr-13, 12:33 PM
Isferno seems to be right, Consciousness is Extrapolation. But is that a consequence of consciousness or what creates consciousness. Can we define consciousness on the basis of extrapolation?

I think yes. Think about the way used to test consciousness in monkeys, chimps- Mirrors. The Chimps can extrapolate- that &#39;other&#39; animal moves when I move, has hands like me, is it me ? That step in thinking is a leap. &#39;Is it me?&#39; The extrapolation moves to a whole new level. Chimps are conscious.

isferno
2005-Apr-13, 03:38 PM
Rahul, your example shows a level of awareness. Even plants are in some way aware of their surrounding, ex. by reacting to sunlight.
But the plant does not make an active choice to grow in some direction based on facts or based on future expectations.

Though you do show that being aware of what is going on around you is important to be able to claim consciousness. In one of my previous posts I already said that this awareness of surrounding is to oblique to build a firm base of what consciousness is.

rahuldandekar
2005-Apr-13, 03:47 PM
As you bring up the question of Plants, I want to ask if we are ready to say that any form of living being has a higher level of consciousness that a computer. Plants too? ;)

Isferno, I do not place that much importance on awareness of surroundings as much I place on Extrapolation and The awareness of the meaning of &#39;me&#39;. And I think the latter is a consequence of the former. However, any of these requires thinking, which plants lack.

Mr. Smartypants gamer guy
2005-Apr-13, 06:58 PM
one more point all of this is just some way a deeper meaning to a basic meaning that there is some way we thing, is it posible were delving to deep into the subject that we need to look at the basics again???

isferno
2005-Apr-13, 08:20 PM
To answer Rahul and Gamer,

Back to basics. What is live, or better, what are higher life forms. Bare with me, I&#39;m using the humoristic approach, now.

One of the things higher life forms have in common are the use of oxygen. You might assume that there exists a correlation between these two, by making the proposition that higher life forms might use more oxygen then lower life forms. Humans in this are quite perfect oxidizers. Not only do they consume it, they use several means to enhance the consummation of oxygen with for example machinery.

Conclusion: Intelligence is nothing more then the ability to consume oxygen beyond the original means you have.

Feedback1:
Looking into nature one will notice that oxygen consummation started randomly. A fire here, some oxidation there, until evolution was forced due to lack of oxygen. Voila, life was created where a passive mobility assured the search for locked up oxygen. From then on, things started to accelerate towards life forms which were better suited to consume oxygen. No doubt the dinosaurs with their sizes were quite the match for humans today.

In effect, a quick glance at what consciousness is, is knowing that you actually need oxygen, and will do anything to get it. Just try to do without it for 5 minutes. Even water, or minerals which are used as oxidant, are less important.

Feedback2:
Of coarse, alternatives are in use by several life forms. But on close examination, those life forms have never gotten beyond bacterial state. Do I need to say more?

Feedback3:
But in our human vocabulary, consciousness means awareness. Are humans aware of breathing oxygen? Have they consciously created means to use more oxygen?
A big "NO" to both questions. So based on this, I might assume that Humans are not conscious beings, but highly advanced beings whom still haven&#39;t gotten beyond their state of intuitive oxidizers. AE, In this view it means that Humans are still mammals.


Back from basics...

Building up a proposition from where you want to work is quite important. We already know which answer we want to have: Humans are conscious beings, Animals and lower life forms are not.

But whichever proposition you try to make, you are bound to include some form or other of Animal life form which also fits the rule. Not only that, consciousness doesn&#39;t provide a sharp line. It comes with degradations. Most mammals do have a form of conscious acting, knowing in advance what they want to achieve and know how to act on it to achieve their goal. Not only this, but manage to adjust tactics accordingly.

This requires several forms of awareness. The 5 senses are which makes one aware. But its the way of acting on it that defines consciousness.

Take the following example:
I take a big piece of salt, put it in a jar which is fixed to its surrounding and wait.
A monkey comes by and tries to take the clump of salt out of the jar, but where the hand fit into the jar, the fist with salt doesn&#39;t come out.
Now here I come, walking towards to monkey to capture it.
Will it consciously release the clump of salt and run, or will it unconsciously try to hold on to something it wants, assuring its own captivity and at the same time tries to run, but can&#39;t.

Consciousness states that an active choice be made, based on what one is aware of. This monkey failed at this active choice making, and will only release the clump of salt when it doesn&#39;t matter anymore.
So being aware that you are looking in a mirror is at least prerequisite for consciousness, but does not have to show consciousness acting.
Its like being aware of the fly and unconsciously swatting it away.


So again, part of consciousness is extrapolation, based upon which you can make active choices.

StarLab
2005-Apr-13, 11:02 PM
As you bring up the question of Plants, I want to ask if we are ready to say that any form of living being has a higher level of consciousness that a computer. Plants too? Yes. Computers rely only on electrical signals - forget light, heat, chemicals, etc... (although that may change if it hasn&#39;t already)
Plus, computers can only process, and cannot interpret, information.

isferno
2005-Apr-14, 11:17 PM
A bit of sidestepping the topic, though inline with my oxygen story ...

mass_extinction (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050414_mass_extinction.html) (dated April 14th)

GOURDHEAD
2005-Apr-15, 07:39 PM
Back to basics. What is live, or better, what are higher life forms?

Here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1697&st=0) is another topic dealing with consciousness.

Mr. Smartypants gamer guy
2005-Apr-17, 07:34 PM
no thats not what i was saying or asking, computers in there own way can be smart but not consios corect? and bacteria can be consios but not inteligent right? well then as we know this humans are both, i dont mean weere robots and bacteria at the same time its that we can think, be consios, wile at the same time know what were doing, like with smart computers, the inteligence aspect, so consiosnes its knowing that your alive for humans, and for other animals or critters or bacteria its doing the job your ment to do...

isferno
2005-Apr-18, 11:58 AM
Gamer,

The problem with approaching consciousness from the "awareness" side is that to many life forms depend on being aware. Even bacteria respond on some level to their surrounding, even if its a stimulation to grow, or grow differently. (ex. Some bacteria tend to form clusters if some chemicals are unavailable)

Awareness also applies to computers. They are "aware" of input and can respond accordingly.

The same applies to being aware of oneself.
I&#39;ve seen two cats (Czarna and Tiger) who couldn&#39;t stand each other have a fight on a psychological level. This included farting in the face of the other cat, jump-scare the other cat who sat on the windowsill, strategical positioning to deny the other entrance etc.
All these psychological fights (without actual fighting) require a high level of self awareness, including awareness of the other cat&#39;s behaviour.
What they don&#39;t require is planning, only opportunity. Though every time, it was a good choice to achieve one goal: intimidation and no fighting.

see also Play fighters do not win in later life (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624956.100) at New Scientist.


This is why creating a proposition as to what consciousness is from the angle of awareness, is slippery or oblique.
Even intelligence is to opaque as you can read from above story. Clearly the cats behaved in quite an intelligent way. They haven&#39;t been trained in such behaviour, but discovered it along with their learning to handle life.


Unless you want consciousness to apply to animals and humans alike, you would need a different approach (or less awareness of animals abilities).

ASEI
2005-May-07, 12:17 AM
Could it be that computers are more aware than all other forms of life"DNA"(if the source code is good).
A computer is more than aware it is HARD-ware.
If I touch a human on the shoulder it responds differently,depending on the individual.If I touch the keys of the computer it does exactly as the pro-grammer has told it to.A PERFECT CHILD&#33;Computers thinking is as flawless as a diamond or coal.

Computers currently don&#39;t "think" as we understand it. They accept input and output, but they process that input and output in terms of static programs. It isn&#39;t so much their hardware that is at issue, it&#39;s the software. If you want a computer to be able to integrate the data in a way that isn&#39;t fixed, and respond to it in ways that aren&#39;t also fixed, then you have to have a program capable of "writing itself" through feedback and association. That&#39;s what we do today with neural networks, and it&#39;s closer to what we need if we wanted to create adept and environemnt responsive robots.
A fixed program&#39;s "thinking" isn&#39;t "flawless", it is contrived by the programmer. (I know from experience. I&#39;m a pretty poor programmer myself, and my programs obediently mulch files and violate memory access rules all the time. :D ) And fixed programs can be downright stupid when it comes to attempting to respond to an environment.
An untrained neural network makes all sorts of mistakes. It keeps trying things essentially at random until enough association patterns accrue, then it begins makeing the correct decisions more often. There&#39;s nothing "better" about the way computers think, currently. And neural network AIs will be just as prone to error until they are properly associated and trained.

rahuldandekar
2005-May-09, 05:24 AM
Do we actually understand how the brain works? We just postulate. Maybe we can attemp different styles of networking to create AI. Some forms may be better than us. But that would require us to create much complexity and human brains are currently the most complex network we know in the universe. Is it required that we surpass this level of complexity before a "better" Artificial brain can be created?

isferno
2005-May-10, 08:31 PM
The moment they stop using only statistical mathematics with AI and start using geometry, they&#39;ll get a lot further with AI.

rahuldandekar
2005-May-11, 05:06 AM
Meaning?

isferno
2005-May-11, 11:19 AM
On unconscious level, you use statistical data to understand people.
On conscious level, you use geometrical data to understand people.

Try it on the phrase: "Meaning?"

Statistical:
1. Have a particular sense
2. Intend to express something
3. Intend to do something
4. Express an intention or opinion
5. Be a cause or sign of something
6. Go with something

Meaning? => refers to "lacking the sense with one or more parts of the previous posted phrase". That is with possible lack of understanding "moment; AI; mathematics" etc.

Geometrical: (in formulated form)
1. AI@T < AI@T+dt with dt larger then defined "moment".
2. AI@T = statistical interpretation of data
3. difference: dt = geometrical interpretation

Meaning? => refers to dt

I have no doubt that you yourself can draw a timeline where at the beginning only statistical data tags along, a point where this timeline is deviated in angle (by me assumed a positive angle) from which point also geometrical interpretation tags along, resulting in a higher end result.