Unconscious Human Beings?

[True Scotsman]

Is there such thing as an unconscious human being? For example if people are fully unconscious in sleep or a coma.

If someone is unconscious, in what sense are they a 'being'... in what sense do they (the person) exist?

You could say that the ability to express a conscious Self is still retained by the brain, so they still exist in the brain in some sense.

On the other hand, the brain, without consciousness, is just a bunch of atoms; like a rock. Does it really make sense to say a lump of unconscious material is a person/ being?

If it were possible to save the personality of someone on a hard-drive (which could become conscious with the flip of a switch) would it make sense to say that unconscious hard-drive is a person/ being?

(It may be that the brain is never fully unconscious until death, but assume for the sake of this that it can be).

Volitional consciousness is a essential element of being a Human being. Take that away and we are like a plant. That is why we call that a vegetative state. Take away all consciousness and we are just a bunch of chemical reactions. With consciousness we are still a bunch of chemical reactions but with the emergent property of awareness and an ability to form concepts. This is what makes us Human instead of a rock.

Edit: I don't mean to imply that when we are asleep that we are no longer Human. Sleep is part of our nature and is a temporary and necessary condition.

 

[Chesterton]

This is false. The baseball has no means by which to recognize any action. Its atoms simply respond to the laws of physics with no centralized or dispersed data collection and usage.

Exactly like every hard drive.

Androids such as these in Japan are programmed to recognize they exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlHrvQ7D5OU

The video doesn't make any claim of that. Did you post the wrong one?

 

[BL2KTN]

Exactly like every hard drive.

No. Hard drives store data. Baseballs do not. It is worrisome that you do not understand the difference.

The video doesn't make any claim of that. Did you post the wrong one?

The video is intended as an intro to Japanese androids. You can look up more information about their self-awareness at your own leisure. There are many, many robots that are self-aware, so I don't want to spend time finding readily available information. Any computer that recognizes itself as an object within the environment has self-awareness.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is false. The baseball has no means by which to recognize any action. Its atoms simply respond to the laws of physics with no centralized or dispersed data collection and usage.

This is the mind-body problem isn't it? A physicalist will claim that "awareness" is the same thing - the material that constitutes the brain is just reacting according to natural laws.

As much as it feels to us there is something more, demonstrating that is a bit difficult. But it begs the question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

 

[Chesterton]

No. Hard drives store data. Baseballs do not. It is worrisome that you do not understand the difference.

Is that the criterion? My garage stores data. Therefore, it's conscious?

The video is intended as an intro to Japanese androids. You can look up more information about their self-awareness at your own leisure. There are many, many robots that are self-aware, so I don't want to spend time finding readily available information. Any computer that recognizes itself as an object within the environment has self-awareness.

I've noticed your pattern:

1. Make false claim.
2. Provide reference which is unrelated, apparently hoping no one notices.
3. When called on it, say "I don't have to give references" or "go do your own work".

 

[Davian]

Right. To think a person disappears when they're not conscious seems the extreme of short-term thinking.

That does reflect the current neuroscientific understanding of how the brain works, as I mentioned in my earlier post.

One could extend this to all kinds of off states. A car isn't a car when it's off. A light bulb isn't a light bulb when it's off ...

... a fork isn't a fork unless someone is eating with it.

Put another way, I think this confuses function with potential (essence).

You point to the (gasoline-powered) car running in your driveway, and say "internal combustion". You turn the car off. Where did the internal combustion go? Is it still there?

 

[Davian]

You are onto something. Consciousness is a super-material phenomenon, its something more than the electrochemical platform on which mind rests.

On what evidence do you base that statement?

 

[Davian]

This is the mind-body problem isn't it? A physicalist will claim that "awareness" is the same thing - the material that constitutes the brain is just reacting according to natural laws.

As much as it feels to us there is something more, demonstrating that is a bit difficult. But it begs the question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

You need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law if you make such a claim.

 

[Resha Caner]

That does reflect the current neuroscientific understanding of how the brain works, as I mentioned in my earlier post.


You point to the (gasoline-powered) car running in your driveway, and say "internal combustion". You turn the car off. Where did the internal combustion go? Is it still there?

Yes, so is self-awareness an event or an ability? Even when the engine is off it retains the ability for combustion. Therefore, it is an internal combustion engine ... even when it's off.

You need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law if you make such a claim.

Sure. I have to turn the engine on to demonstrate its ability. If you want to believe that ability then disappears when I turn it off again (shrug). It seems a bit silly to me, but whatever.

The question becomes, how can one demonstrate "more than natural law" to someone who a priori assumes that anything he can perceive is due to natural law.

*Note: For the record, I'm not claiming self-awareness is more than natural law. I'm just pointing out the issues.

 

[Davian]

Yes, so is self-awareness an event or an ability?

The phenomenal self is an event. Self-awareness is an ability.

Even when the engine is off it retains the ability for combustion. Therefore, it is an internal combustion engine ... even when it's off.

I asked, where did the internal combustion go?

Sure. I have to turn the engine on to demonstrate its ability. If you want to believe that ability then disappears when I turn it off again (shrug). It seems a bit silly to me, but whatever.

That is not what I wrote.

The question becomes, how can one demonstrate "more than natural law" to someone who a priori assumes that anything he can perceive is due to natural law.

I make no such assumptions. Go for it.

*Note: For the record, I'm not claiming self-awareness is more than natural law. I'm just pointing out the issues.

What issues?

 

[BL2KTN]

This is the mind-body problem isn't it? A physicalist will claim that "awareness" is the same thing - the material that constitutes the brain is just reacting according to natural laws.

As much as it feels to us there is something more, demonstrating that is a bit difficult. But it begs the question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

I think you're close, but not using the best terms. Qualia is the intangible thing that we can't really answer yet. Self-aware and consciousness aren't that difficult. Most people use the word consciousness when what they're really referring to is qualia.

Is that the criterion? My garage stores data. Therefore, it's conscious?

Your garage is just as conscious as a hard drive. A hard drive by itself is not conscious. Neither is your garage. A hard drive connected to other parts of a computer can contribute to consciousness. A baseball stores no data and cannot be connected to acquire data from it for consciousness.

I've noticed your pattern:

1. Make false claim.
2. Provide reference which is unrelated, apparently hoping no one notices.
3. When called on it, say "I don't have to give references" or "go do your own work".

1. The Japanese androids in the video are programmed to have self-awareness. It was an accurate claim.

2. The video was an intro for you to begin learning about modern androids. Here is another video demonstrating the self-aware aspects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQVg8JSWvO0

3. Well, there goes that. By the way, there are so many examples of self-aware robots that its silly to not know. Self-driving cars have logged millions of miles on the highways... they have to know they exist within the environment in order to avoid collisions. Same thing with the Mars Rovers in certain situations.

Perhaps your emotional response to a non-emotional issue reveals that you have some sort of attachment to your position?

 

[Chesterton]

Your garage is just as conscious as a hard drive. A hard drive by itself is not conscious. Neither is your garage.

Agreed.

A hard drive connected to other parts of a computer can contribute to consciousness.

How so? (A Nobel Prize awaits your answer.)

1. The Japanese androids in the video are programmed to have self-awareness. It was an accurate claim.

No, they're not. Again, the video itself did not even claim that.

2. The video was an intro for you to begin learning about modern androids. Here is another video demonstrating the self-aware aspects:

We've all seen these things on TV news shows. And they are in no way demonstrating self-awareness.

3. Well, there goes that. By the way, there are so many examples of self-aware robots that its silly to not know. Self-driving cars have logged millions of miles on the highways... they have to know they exist within the environment in order to avoid collisions. Same thing with the Mars Rovers in certain situations.

And you're honestly ignorant of the fact that programmers wrote instructions that they have to follow? They're more complex, but in actuality they're as conscious as my kitchen toaster.

Perhaps your emotional response to a non-emotional issue reveals that you have some sort of attachment to your position?

I could make a joke about your emotional involvment in wishful thinking, but I'm sure it's just coincidence that both clips show machines made to look like females.

 

[BL2KTN]

How so? (A Nobel Prize awaits your answer.)

If so, theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku has beat me to it.
Michio Kaku Explains Consciousness for You - Issue 14: Mutation - Nautilus

No, they're not. Again, the video itself did not even claim that.

The video was an intro to androids. I've already explained that to you. Many different robots/computers are conscious.

We've all seen these things on TV news shows. And they are in no way demonstrating self-awareness.

An entity which can answer questions about itself is aware of itself. It is self-aware.

And you're honestly ignorant of the fact that programmers wrote instructions that they have to follow? They're more complex, but in actuality they're as conscious as my kitchen toaster.

And you're honestly ignorant of the fact that reproduction wrote genetic instructions into your brain that you have to follow?

The androids are able to listen to speech, understand the language, and attempt to generate a proper response. Your toaster heats up when you hit a button. This is akin to your baseball comparison before... and both worry me about your deductive skills.

I could make a joke about your emotional involvment in wishful thinking, but I'm sure it's just coincidence that both clips show machines made to look like females.

And now you're a sexist. If the robots had been depicted as male, you wouldn't have made the comment. I, on the other hand, hadn't even noticed until you brought it up.

 

[Resha Caner]

I asked, where did the internal combustion go?

I know. So what was your purpose in asking?
1) To divert the thread into a gearhead conversation about cars?
2) To ask me to engage in further exploring the analogy between cars and people?
3) A rhetorical device that didn't need a direct answer to the question, but was rather trying to make the point that just as certain events in cars come to an end, so also certain human events come to an end during unconsciousness?
4) Something else?

That is not what I wrote.

Yes, I know. I assumed your purpose was #3 above. So I only meant to point out that the end of an event doesn't mean the end of a person. I'm sorry if it came across as some kind of attack.

I make no such assumptions. Go for it.

Are you sure? You make absolutely no assumptions at all?

Since I said I wasn't making the claim you mentioned, what claim do you think I am making such that I need to "go for it"?

 

[Chesterton]

If so, theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku has beat me to it.
Michio Kaku Explains Consciousness for You - Issue 14: Mutation - Nautilus

Instead of wasting my time on another irrelevant video (especially from Mr. Kaku), I'll just post a selection of some of the comments on the page you linked:

"Kaku appears to be a media seeker (wants to be famous), and often says things that are not based in science or fact. He'll say things like, "in the future, humans will _______". He has no idea and it's certainly not a fact-based conclusion. IMO, he has zero credibility."
　
"Btw, welcome to the Sausage Factory of creative endeavors."
　
"I agree. I tried reading one of his pop physics books but couldn't get past the 1st chapter."

"This is the most arrogant thing I've ever seen. And that might be excusable if he had even the slightest idea what he was talking about, which he doesn't."
​

 

[Davian]

...

I've noticed your pattern:

1. Make false claim.
2. Provide reference which is unrelated, apparently hoping no one notices.
3. When called on it, say "I don't have to give references" or "go do your own work".

On the subject of patterns, I noted that you skipped over my response to what you said earlier:

Colter: "You are onto something. Consciousness is a super-material phenomenon, its something more than the electrochemical platform on which mind rests."

On what evidence to you base that statement?

 

[Chesterton]

On the subject of patterns, I noted that you skipped over my response to what you said earlier:

Colter: "You are onto something. Consciousness is a super-material phenomenon, its something more than the electrochemical platform on which mind rests."

On what evidence to you base that statement?

It looks like you addressed that to someone named Colter. What post is it?

 

[variant]

Is there such thing as an unconscious human being? For example if people are fully unconscious in sleep or a coma.

If someone is unconscious, in what sense are they a 'being'... in what sense do they (the person) exist?

You could say that the ability to express a conscious Self is still retained by the brain, so they still exist in the brain in some sense.

On the other hand, the brain, without consciousness, is just a bunch of atoms; like a rock. Does it really make sense to say a lump of unconscious material is a person/ being?

The body is a living system capable of producing conscious thought it is quite different from a rock.

It is quite possible that consciousness exists as a matter of degrees in such a system so that you don't get to a point of unconsciousness.

If it were possible to save the personality of someone on a hard-drive (which could become conscious with the flip of a switch) would it make sense to say that unconscious hard-drive is a person/ being?

(It may be that the brain is never fully unconscious until death, but assume for the sake of this that it can be).

I'm not sure if you can even have a digital consciousness so it's hard to say, the consciousnesses we know of are the byproduct of analog living systems.

We would have to know more about how to build consciousnesses to answer such questions.

 

[variant]

This is the mind-body problem isn't it? A physicalist will claim that "awareness" is the same thing - the material that constitutes the brain is just reacting according to natural laws.

As much as it feels to us there is something more, demonstrating that is a bit difficult. But it begs the question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

I sincerely doubt the baseball has a sense of its self.

I doubt that it can make the self vs not self distinction that is required for being aware.

 

[Resha Caner]

I sincerely doubt the baseball has a sense of its self.

I doubt that it can make the self vs not self distinction that is required for being aware.

Was this meant to answer my question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

If so, I don't get it. I realize a baseball isn't self-aware.