Consciousness Doesn't Exist.

Originally posted by raj10463
Lets unconfuse everyone real quick. Consciousness is not some mysterious state of being nor is it an isolated existence. In order to understand this all we have to first decide what is capable of possessing a conscious thought. Well the fact is that not all life is conscious because not all life has a brain. So being alive and conscious are not the same state, unfortunately a prime example of this difference in our state of existence would be somebody who is in a coma, just like a tree they are alive but not conscious.

Our awareness of our own existence stems from the processes used during thought. Thought is the collective network of mental tools an intelligent life form uses in absorbing, retaining and processing information. These tools; like memory or our senses, are results of evolution and the redundant build up of our brain's capacity to perform which increases our chance of survival. Next we need to realise the important connection between what information is and what defines a living being. Information put simple is a relation made between two separate subjects by a third and separate intelligent observer. In collaboration with the process of memory we become able to retain this information to benefit from at a different time.

A brain has nothing to do with it. It evolved because of it. Without it consciousness still exists and all things have it.

"However, I now have to say that I was conceding too much in my earlier statements of this argument. I was conceding that the computational theory of the mind was at least false. But it now seems to me that it does not reach the level of falsity because it does not have a clear sense. Here is why.
The natural sciences describe features of reality that are intrinsic to the world as it exists independently of any observers. Thus, gravitational attraction, photosynthesis, and electromagnetism are all subjects of the natural sciences because they describe intrinsic features of reality. But such features such as being a bathtub, being a nice day for a picnic, being a five dollar bill or being a chair, are not subjects of the natural sciences because they are not intrinsic features of reality. All the phenomena I named -- bathtubs, etc. -- are physical objects and as physical objects have features that are intrinsic to reality. But the feature of being a bathtub or a five dollar bill exists only relative to observers and users…

The point of the parable is clear but it is usually neglected. Syntax by itself is not sufficient for semantic content. In all of the attacks on the Chinese room argument [plato.stanford.edu...], I have never seen anyone come out baldly and say they think that syntax is sufficient for semantic content…

The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."
FROM
users.ecs.soton.ac.uk...
plato.stanford.edu...

plato.stanford.edu...

People are always calling me a mirror and if a mirror looks into a mirror, what is there to see?”
— Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol
FROM
www.tumblr.com...
www.brainyquote.com...