Are we conscious beings?

[Gary Childress]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being? Of what use is consciousness if it is unable to choose or do anything other than what has been determined for it to do or choose. According to conservation laws consciousness can do nothing to affect the world--a world of matter in motion. Is consciousness just along for a ride or is there no such thing as consciousness at all, just "smoke and mirrors" created by a mathematical algorithm running its course?

[Gary Childress]

Is consciousness superfluous? If it can't do anything, initiate anything or cause anything, then what is the point of all this? All this could happen using mechanical robots that didn't feel pain or pleasure or anything. Are we in some kind of existential theme park where angels or demons from the after life take turns at the wheel of human bodies, passively watching as our bodies move in deterministic directions? And do I know what kind of ride I have chosen? Did I choose a ride in the theme park called the "emotional rollercoaster"?

[Noax]

You make it sound like consciousness is a separate 'thing', and that it is epiphenomenal.
That is a pretty superfluous model, yes.

And the only reason the robots don't feel human pain is because only humans feel that. A rabbit feels rabbit pain. A robot feels robot pain, which hasn't likely been significantly programmed into any robot yet. Most seem fairly unaware if I say start melting an appendage with a laser.

[Age]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being?

The answer to this question would all depend on what you mean by 'conscious', exactly?

For example, if you mean 'being aware', then, 'Yes', there is such a thing as a 'conscious being'. 'you', human beings, one of those 'conscious beings', while all of the other animals are, also, 'aware', and thus also 'conscious beings', as well. Then there are the plants, which it could be said and argued, well for at least some anyway, also have some sort of 'awareness', to the surroundings, and therefore are 'conscious beings'. So, AGAIN, 'Yes there really is such a thing as a 'conscious' being.

And, on a further note, who and what an ALWAYS Truly and FULLY AWARE, 'conscious Being', IS, EXACTLY, could be DISCUSSED. Again, but ONLY for those who are Truly INTERESTED TO.

Of what use is consciousness if it is unable to choose or do anything other than what has been determined for it to do or choose.

1. The EXACT PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, has NO REAL BEARING on whether 'one' is ABLE or NOT ABLE to CHOOSE what to do.

2. It could be said and argued that plants, and non human animals, for example, have 'consciousness', AND, that they are ABLE TO and NOT ABLE TO 'CHOOSE' to do ANY thing other than what has been determined for them to do or choose. However, as for you human beings it has been determined for you to be ABLE TO CHOOSE to do MORE than these other things, or beings.

3. The PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, is just BE ABLE to be 'AWARE'. And, this does NOT MATTER if 'you' are ABLE, or NOT ABLE, TO 'CHOOSE'.

According to conservation laws consciousness can do nothing to affect the world--a world of matter in motion.

This is OBVIOUSLY False as ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing DONE BY those WITH 'consciousness', OBVIOUSLY affects 'the world', in some way.

Is consciousness just along for a ride or is there no such thing as consciousness at all, just "smoke and mirrors" created by a mathematical algorithm running its course?

you would have to FIRST CLARIFY what even is the 'consciousness' word MEANING, and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO you.

Then, and ONLY THEN, could 'I', or others, INFORM 'you' of what the ANSWER IS, here, EXACTLY.

[Gary Childress]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being?

The answer to this question would all depend on what you mean by 'conscious', exactly?

For example, if you mean 'being aware', then, 'Yes', there is such a thing as a 'conscious being'. 'you', human beings, one of those 'conscious beings', while all of the other animals are, also, 'aware', and thus also 'conscious beings', as well. Then there are the plants, which it could be said and argued, well for at least some anyway, also have some sort of 'awareness', to the surroundings, and therefore are 'conscious beings'. So, AGAIN, 'Yes there really is such a thing as a 'conscious' being.

And, on a further note, who and what an ALWAYS Truly and FULLY AWARE, 'conscious Being', IS, EXACTLY, could be DISCUSSED. Again, but ONLY for those who are Truly INTERESTED TO.

Of what use is consciousness if it is unable to choose or do anything other than what has been determined for it to do or choose.

1. The EXACT PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, has NO REAL BEARING on whether 'one' is ABLE or NOT ABLE to CHOOSE what to do.

2. It could be said and argued that plants, and non human animals, for example, have 'consciousness', AND, that they are ABLE TO and NOT ABLE TO 'CHOOSE' to do ANY thing other than what has been determined for them to do or choose. However, as for you human beings it has been determined for you to be ABLE TO CHOOSE to do MORE than these other things, or beings.

3. The PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, is just BE ABLE to be 'AWARE'. And, this does NOT MATTER if 'you' are ABLE, or NOT ABLE, TO 'CHOOSE'.

According to conservation laws consciousness can do nothing to affect the world--a world of matter in motion.

This is OBVIOUSLY False as ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing DONE BY those WITH 'consciousness', OBVIOUSLY affects 'the world', in some way.

Is consciousness just along for a ride or is there no such thing as consciousness at all, just "smoke and mirrors" created by a mathematical algorithm running its course?

you would have to FIRST CLARIFY what even is the 'consciousness' word MEANING, and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO you.

Then, and ONLY THEN, could 'I', or others, INFORM 'you' of what the ANSWER IS, here, EXACTLY.

I wish I could clarify for you all your questions, Age. But I find clarity very difficult to attain right now. Suffice to say, that maybe it's not all that important for you to understand what I'm saying. Maybe you and I and every other conscious being in this world, are just along for a ride.

[Age]

Is consciousness superfluous?

'Consciousness', itself, may well be UNNECESSARY, however, 'consciousness', in 'the way' that 'I' have DEFINED 'that word' FOR 'you', here, EXISTS.

If it can't do anything, initiate anything or cause anything, then what is the point of all this?

What is 'the point' in ALL of 'what', exactly?

But, for now, 'consciousness' is NOT MEANT TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, other than what 'it' WAS INTENDED FOR. That is; to just be 'A WORD', which its definition is MEANING, or REFERRING TO, JUST 'BEING AWARE'.

All this could happen using mechanical robots that didn't feel pain or pleasure or anything.

ALL 'what', EXACTLY, could happen using mechanical robots?

Also, WHO and/or WHAT could have CREATED said 'mechanical robots', EXACTLY?

Human bodies are NOTHING MORE than just a combination of 'matter', AND 'space', formed into a particular shape, with particular abilities, through and from the continual process of the EVOLVING-CREATION, or the CREATING-EVOLUTION.

Are we in some kind of existential theme park where angels or demons from the after life take turns at the wheel of human bodies, passively watching as our bodies move in deterministic directions?

AGAIN, the ANSWER to this question will ALL DEPEND on your OWN 'personal definitions' that you HAVE and USE FOR the words, here.

And do I know what kind of ride I have chosen?

What 'ride' have you CHOSEN?

Did I choose a ride in the theme park called the "emotional rollercoaster"?

'you' just TOLD 'us' that you KNOW what kind of ride 'you' HAVE CHOSEN. So, the ANSWER TO your question, here, would be, 'Yes', correct?

[Age]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being?

The answer to this question would all depend on what you mean by 'conscious', exactly?

For example, if you mean 'being aware', then, 'Yes', there is such a thing as a 'conscious being'. 'you', human beings, one of those 'conscious beings', while all of the other animals are, also, 'aware', and thus also 'conscious beings', as well. Then there are the plants, which it could be said and argued, well for at least some anyway, also have some sort of 'awareness', to the surroundings, and therefore are 'conscious beings'. So, AGAIN, 'Yes there really is such a thing as a 'conscious' being.

And, on a further note, who and what an ALWAYS Truly and FULLY AWARE, 'conscious Being', IS, EXACTLY, could be DISCUSSED. Again, but ONLY for those who are Truly INTERESTED TO.

Of what use is consciousness if it is unable to choose or do anything other than what has been determined for it to do or choose.

1. The EXACT PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, has NO REAL BEARING on whether 'one' is ABLE or NOT ABLE to CHOOSE what to do.

2. It could be said and argued that plants, and non human animals, for example, have 'consciousness', AND, that they are ABLE TO and NOT ABLE TO 'CHOOSE' to do ANY thing other than what has been determined for them to do or choose. However, as for you human beings it has been determined for you to be ABLE TO CHOOSE to do MORE than these other things, or beings.

3. The PURPOSE, or USE, of 'consciousness', itself, is just BE ABLE to be 'AWARE'. And, this does NOT MATTER if 'you' are ABLE, or NOT ABLE, TO 'CHOOSE'.

According to conservation laws consciousness can do nothing to affect the world--a world of matter in motion.

This is OBVIOUSLY False as ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing DONE BY those WITH 'consciousness', OBVIOUSLY affects 'the world', in some way.

Is consciousness just along for a ride or is there no such thing as consciousness at all, just "smoke and mirrors" created by a mathematical algorithm running its course?

you would have to FIRST CLARIFY what even is the 'consciousness' word MEANING, and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, TO you.

Then, and ONLY THEN, could 'I', or others, INFORM 'you' of what the ANSWER IS, here, EXACTLY.

I wish I could clarify for you all your questions,Age.

WHY do you BELIEVE that you can NOT CLARIFY, exactly?

Also, in the quoted part of 'my words', here, in your response, is there even ONE QUESTION, which I asked you?

On second reading OBVIOUSLY there IS A MISTAKE where I VERY SLOPPILY, and VERY INCORRECTLY, ADDED a question mark to the end of one of my statements and claims. But, other than 'that' I do NOT SEE WHERE I HAVE ASKED you AN ACTUAL QUESTION, there.

But I find clarity very difficult to attain right now.

you are CERTAINLY NOT the ONLY one "gary childress".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout these writings, in this forum, CLARITY is RARELY GIVEN, if EVER.

Suffice to say, that maybe it's not all that important for you to understand what I'm saying.

But WHO CLAIMS that 'I' do NOT UNDERSTAND 'you' ARE SAYING, here?

JUST MAYBE 'I' AM, in 'my way', POINTING OUT that the VERY REASON WHY questions like, 'What is 'consciousness', exactly?' for example, are NEVER ANSWERED, IS BECAUSE, it is you people WONDERING 'these things' who HAVE NOT YET UNDERSTOOD what 'you', "yourselves", are ACTUALLY SAYING, MEANING, AND ASKING.

Maybe you and I and every other conscious being in this world, are just along for a ride.

MAYBE SO. But, then again, maybe there are SOME, like 'us', and NOT like 'you', who KNOW, EXACTLY, WHERE 'the ride' IS TAKING 'you' people and human beings, TO, EXACTLY.

[Age]

You make it sound like consciousness is a separate 'thing', and that it is epiphenomenal.
That is a pretty superfluous model, yes.

And the only reason the robots don't feel human pain is because only humans feel that. A rabbit feels rabbit pain. A robot feels robot pain, which hasn't likely been significantly programmed into any robot yet. Most seem fairly unaware if I say start melting an appendage with a laser.

But, if a robot can be programmed to 'think' like you human beings 'think', then could a robot, also, be programmed to 'feel', like you human beings 'feel'?

[Fairy]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being?

Yes and No. This is a tricky one, actually.
While consciousness is, consciousness is not a 'thing'. 'Things' are not conscious. So Consciousness must precede thing, consciousness must be fundamental.

A 'Thing' is an object known in consciousness, and at the same time, consciousness has absolutely no experience of being the object it sees and knows.

While objects are seen and known. Consciousness is never seen or known. Test it for yourself, see if you can see consciousness, see if you can point to consciousness... It that possible? ...it seems like all you can do is point to an object. An object that has no consciousness, because there is only consciousness, one without a second.

So the only experience, is the experience of 'consciousness'. A consciousness that cannot be seen or known by any thing. So does that mean a seer or a knower is an illusion. Yes, when the illusion appears as a real illusion, where there seems to be a ''thing'' that goes by the label 'knower' or 'seer'.

The only way consciousness can be seen or known is when consciousness imagines or thinks it is the object or label it knows and sees, and also at the same time, knows and sees that the object or label does not know or see at all. It's all a bit loopy, yeah, I know.

That's all folks. That's about the gist of it, that's yer lot.

[Noax]

But, if a robot can be programmed to 'think' like you human beings 'think', then could a robot, also, be programmed to 'feel', like you human beings 'feel'?

If you could do the former, then sure, the latter would be part of it. I highly doubt there'd be an incentive to do that however. What would be the point?

[Age]

But, if a robot can be programmed to 'think' like you human beings 'think', then could a robot, also, be programmed to 'feel', like you human beings 'feel'?

If you could do the former, then sure, the latter would be part of it.

Okay, thank you.

I highly doubt there'd be an incentive to do that however. What would be the point?

To make 'more money'.

Just like 'the point' of just about EVERY thing that you adult human beings do, in the days when this is being written, is to just make 'more money'.

[Noax]

I highly doubt there'd be an incentive to [think & feel like humans] however. What would be the point?

To make 'more money'.

I'm not sure there will be a concept of money once technology has reached the point of this capability.
The machines will run everything. Maybe it's all one big machine with mobile parts, sort of a hive. A group of machines that are individuals seems suboptimal to me. So anyway, I don't see why the machine would find any utility in creating what you just described. Maybe education. Humans are trying to build a functioning mosquito (and still failing). If the machine still has access to living humans, perhaps it would find utility in empathizing with one, but it would have no idea if it's doing it correctly except to observe external behavior.

Anyway, if it's done at all, it won't be humans doing it. That would be like putting frogs in charge of retrieving samples from the moon.

[Age]

I highly doubt there'd be an incentive to [think & feel like humans] however. What would be the point?

To make 'more money'.

I'm not sure there will be a concept of money once technology has reached the point of this capability.

Okay, but what you are NOT SURE OF, here, is NOT really that exciting.

And, in case you are UNAWARE, you ASKED the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'What should be the point?' IN REGARDS TO 'an incentive as to WHY you human beings would program some thing to think and feel like you human beings think and feel.

I JUST PROVIDED what AN ACTUAL INCENTIVE would, or could, be.

Now, if there is or is not a 'concept of money' some time in the future, from when this is being written, had ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on THE ANSWER, and CLARIFICATION, I PROVIDED FOR the CLARIFYING QUESTION that you posed, and ASKED, here.

The machines will run everything.

WHO CARES?

you WERE ASKING IN RELATION TO you HUMAN BEINGS, right?

Maybe it's all one big machine with mobile parts, sort of a hive.

Maybe 'what' is, supposedly, ALL ONE BIG MACHINE, EXACTLY?

A group of machines that are individuals seems suboptimal to me.

WHERE, EXACTLY, do you WANT TO TAKE this ATTEMPT AT DEFLECTION, EXACTLY?

So anyway, I don't see why the machine would find any utility in creating what you just described.

LOL What WERE you ASKING your CLARIFYING QUESTION, in relation TO, EXACTLY?

HUMAN BEINGS or MACHINES? Or, something ELSE?

Maybe education. Humans are trying to build a functioning mosquito (and still failing).

AGAIN, WHO CARES?

What IS, or WAS, 'the incentive' for building a functioning mosquito, EXACTLY?

If the machine still has access to living humans, perhaps it would find utility in empathizing with one, but it would have no idea if it's doing it correctly except to observe external behavior.

WHO CARES?

As far as I AM AWARE your CLARIFYING QUESTION, which I ANSWERED, and CLARIFIED, FOR you, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 'this', here.

Anyway, if it's done at all, it won't be humans doing it.

Okay, and HOW do you KNOW 'the future', as you CLAIM you do, here?

That would be like putting frogs in charge of retrieving samples from the moon.

Okay. But you have, REALLY, GONE OFF ON ANOTHER TANGENT, here.

[Noax]

And, in case you are UNAWARE, you ASKED the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'What should be the point?' IN REGARDS TO 'an incentive as to WHY you human beings would program some thing to think and feel like you human beings think and feel.

It was not in regards to that since no mention was made by either of us that it would be a human to do the programming. They're not capable of it.

you WERE ASKING IN RELATION TO you HUMAN BEINGS, right?

No, of course not. Your query was not asked in relation to humans.

[Age]

And, in case you are UNAWARE, you ASKED the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'What should be the point?' IN REGARDS TO 'an incentive as to WHY you human beings would program some thing to think and feel like you human beings think and feel.

It was not in regards to that since no mention was made by either of us that it would be a human to do the programming. They're not capable of it.

NO one said that you human beings were capable of a robot to 'think' like you human beings 'think'.

But, if you were NOT meaning NOR referring to you human beings, then, what, EXACTLY, were you MEANING and REFERRING TO, when you said and wrote, 'If 'you' could do the former, [that is; program a robot to 'think' like you human beings 'think'?

When you USED the 'you' word, above here, then what were you 'thinking about', EXACTLY?

Also, who and/or what else could KNOW HOW 'you' human beings 'think'? In other words what else could KNOW HOW to program to 'think' like you human beings 'think', besides you human beings of course?

you WERE ASKING IN RELATION TO you HUMAN BEINGS, right?

No, of course not. Your query was not asked in relation to humans.

LOL So, when you SAID and WROTE:

If 'you' could do the former, then who and/or what, EXACTLY, were you talking ABOUT?

And, if you ASSUMED or BELIEVED that my query was NOT asked in relation to human beings, then WHY did you ASSUME or BELIEVE that my query was NOT?

What ELSE could have my query been in relation TO, EXACTLY?

And, BEFORE you provide AN ANSWER I will suggest 'you' 'think' VERY CAREFULLY, FIRST.