Reincarnation

[Sriram]

Intelligence: the ability to acquire and use information and to learn from that process
Consciousness: the ability to be aware of and respond to external objects and stimuli
Self awareness: the ability to be aware of oneself

They are different things and you can think of examples where an entity may possess one, two or all three. And while anything that is self aware is probably conscious you can think of examples of something that is intelligent but not conscious (ChatGPT) and something that is conscious but not intelligent (e.g. an organism that is aware of its surroundings but unable to acquire and use that information.

An cat that thinks the cat in the mirror is a threat will be conscious, not self aware and not very intelligent. A cat that learns that the cat in the mirror is itself is intelligent, conscious and learns self awareness.

I agree with that. Consciousness is fundamental and is the ability to have subjective experiences.  Intelligence and self awareness are extensions of that with more specific abilities. 

All living things are conscious. Some are also intelligent to different degrees meaning that they respond and react to their environment. Self awareness is an ability that is specific to more complex organisms. 

So...what is consciousness? Is it just a property of the brain that has evolved through chance driven random variations and a metaphoric natural selection?   Of course not.   

This is no doubt a philosophical point...but consciousness is a property of the spirit. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

All living things are conscious.

Really?

Slime mould? Viruses? Bacteria?

This is no doubt a philosophical point...but consciousness is a property of the spirit.

What "spirit" would that be?

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with that. Consciousness is fundamental and is the ability to have subjective experiences.  Intelligence and self awareness are extensions of that with more specific abilities.

Nope - self awareness is an extension of consciousness, as I cannot see how you can be self aware without being conscious.

But intelligence is not an extension of consciousness as there are things that are intelligent but non conscious as my ChatGTP example demonstrates. Arguably there are things that are conscious but not intelligent, although I think whether something is intelligent or not is not an absolute but a spectrum.

[ProfessorDavey]

All living things are conscious.

I disagree - consciousness requires more than some kind of sensor/actuator system or my car would be conscious as it is able to park itself by using sensor to detect objects and actuators to avoid them. Nope consciousness requires some kind of awareness of external things beyond a mere sensor/actuator function.

[Bramble]

consciousness is a property of the spirit.

But too much spirit can lead to loss of consciousness

[Nearly Sane]

But too much spirit can lead to loss of consciousness

Such as this

https://youtu.be/EYcnKkBOcmI

[Sriram]

Nope - self awareness is an extension of consciousness, as I cannot see how you can be self aware without being conscious.

But intelligence is not an extension of consciousness as there are things that are intelligent but non conscious as my ChatGTP example demonstrates. Arguably there are things that are conscious but not intelligent, although I think whether something is intelligent or not is not an absolute but a spectrum.

You make some good points.   However Intelligence cannot exist without consciousness. Consciousness is what gives purpose and direction to intelligence.

Even your chatGPT cannot be 'intelligent' without human consciousness and intelligence. It cannot arise on its own. In a sense, chatGPT can be seen as a human extension ....just like a self driven car.

ChatGPT is language driven. It does not have any objective or need to survive or need to do anything.  The moment a robot starts having its own objectives and intent and experiences....that means consciousness has entered the scene and has somehow attached itself to the machine.  That is when we have to worry.

All living things including bacteria are conscious.....though there are different levels of consciousness.  That is what makes them respond to their environment,  fight for survival and reproduce.  Experience and intent are consciousness driven.

[jeremyp]

All living things including bacteria are conscious.....though there are different levels of consciousness.  That is what makes them respond to their environment,  fight for survival and reproduce.  Experience and intent are consciousness driven.

Nonsense. That reduces the word to meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nonsense. That reduces the word to meaningless.

Absolutely - and Sririam appears to arbitrarily restrict consciousness to living things. Why? If a bacterium is conscious, why not my car which uses sensors and actuators to autonomously act to park itself.

The problem with Sriram is that he doesn't seem to understand the distinction between sensing and perception, the latter requiring some level of awareness, which is a prerequisite for consciousness. Things that can sense, but not perceive aren't conscious in my thinking.

[Sriram]

Without consciousness there cannot be any intelligence or perception or awareness.  Even your examples of chatGPT and self driven cars are only extensions of human consciousness and capabilities. By themselves they cannot exist or do any of the things that they do. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Without consciousness there cannot be any intelligence or perception or awareness.  Even your examples of chatGPT and self driven cars are only extensions of human consciousness and capabilities. By themselves they cannot exist or do any of the things that they do.

Except they can - that's why they are described as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their intelligence develops from themselves - what humans produce in the first place doesn't have that intelligence.

[Sriram]

Except they can - that's why they are described as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their intelligence develops from themselves - what humans produce in the first place doesn't have that intelligence.

I agree that Intelligence needs some specific platforms to work on.  But without intent and will, intelligence cannot work. It doesn't have a driver.

ChatGPT and others work on human will and intent. 

If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them and that can be dangerous. The ghost in the machine...literally.

[ProfessorDavey]

If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them ...

No it doesn't - it just means they are operating autonomously - that doesn't mean that they are conscious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

All living things including bacteria are conscious...

Why do you think that's true?

[jeremyp]

If at any time such robots work by themselves, that means that consciousness has somehow entered them and that can be dangerous. The ghost in the machine...literally.

I think you need to tell us what your definition of consciousness is. It doesn't seem to be the same as anybody else's.

[Sriram]

Consciousness is life itself IMO. Without consciousness there is no life. Without life there is no consciousness. They are virtually indistinguishable.

Consciousness is the source of subjectivity, experience, intent and response. It has several levels...from basic to very complex. 

All living things are conscious because they have some sort of experience, intent and response.  Intelligence is the ability of consciousness to respond suitably to environmental situations in line with its intent and needs.  In complex organisms, consciousness gives rise to self awareness. 

Consciousness can exist in subtle forms such as our unconscious mind.  It could also perhaps exist in a collective form that is common to all beings.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/the-unconscious-mind/

[jeremyp]

Consciousness is life itself IMO. Without consciousness there is no life. Without life there is no consciousness. They are virtually indistinguishable.

I thought so. You are using a definition of consciousness that nobody else does. If you mean life, stay "life". Don't try to repurpose another word.

[Sriram]

https://people.com/parents/boy-says-he-was-gucci-past-life-goes-viral-dressmaking-exclusive/

**********

While most first-graders couldn't name the founder of Gucci — let alone know anything about him — 7-year-old Max Alexander believes he has a deep connection to the famed designer.

Max, a dressmaking prodigy who has been designing and creating clothes since he was 4 years old, tells PEOPLE he was Gucci in a past life. "I actually was," he says with confidence.

**********

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

https://people.com/parents/boy-says-he-was-gucci-past-life-goes-viral-dressmaking-exclusive/

**********

While most first-graders couldn't name the founder of Gucci — let alone know anything about him — 7-year-old Max Alexander believes he has a deep connection to the famed designer.

Max, a dressmaking prodigy who has been designing and creating clothes since he was 4 years old, tells PEOPLE he was Gucci in a past life. "I actually was," he says with confidence.

It seems your gullibility knows no bounds. Could I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?

[Sriram]

I believe in reincarnation and find the idea plausible.  This is not a science forum that I have to provide evidence and a thorough analysis for everything I write.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I believe in reincarnation and find the idea plausible.  This is not a science forum that I have to provide evidence and a thorough analysis for everything I write.

And I believe in leprechauns and find the idea plausible. The difference between us though is that I dont post idiotic attempts to justify my belief.

[Sriram]

You are free to justify them if you believe in them. I for one will not keep badgering you for evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are free to justify them if you believe in them. I for one will not keep badgering you for evidence.

You've missed the point. I'm not claiming to have evidence. You on the other hand are, only your "evidence" turns out to be idiotic.

[Sriram]

I never claimed anything as scientific evidence. These are cases that make the idea plausible. They add to the belief. Many people accept it as evidence, many don't. So what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I never claimed anything as scientific evidence. These are cases that make the idea plausible. They add to the belief. Many people accept it as evidence, many don't. So what?

No, but you think a four-year-old kid who's heard of a fashion designer and has a penchant for clothes design is evidence for reincarnation of some kind. It isn't, and they don't make the idea plausible at all - do I really need to explain to you why that is?