We are getting better and better at describing the biochemistry that makes cells work, but we are not close to understanding what mechanisms cause sentience, consciousness and mind. The current (many) definitions of "life" almost all include cellular activities, especially molecular biological and biochemical activities. I propose that these chemistry-based processes be downgraded from the life definitions and that life should only be granted to those entities that have consciousness and mind. Otherwise, we will never be able to get out of the circular "exceptions" arguments for what is life (or living). So, in summary, all lower organisms (no consciousness/mind) are complex chemistry, but minds are alive (not withstanding their possible reliance upon complex chemistry or having an origin in complex chemistry, although who knows, this might not be necessary in any or all cases).

There are plenty of arguments for and against, but this is a rarely taken opinion (aside from those having this opinion due to lack of insight into the whole spectrum of organisms/chemistry). It has wide-ranging implications, including how we view extraterrestrial mindless complex biochemistry if we discover it. As this idea elevates the mind to an even greater importance maybe here on brainmeta.com we should take on board a discussion of the issues.

how would you know what has consciousness and mind? So panpsychism is refuted? What if consciousness is a continuum instead of binary (i.e., there being gradations of consciousness, with amoeba having minimal consciousness)?

Well we have to have accepted definitions of these (and ways of analyzing for them).

Uhm ... a bit like Gaia, or the whole world (universe) is a living organism. That doesn't fit with the common definitions either.

Back to definitions of consciousness. What do gradations of consciousness permit (properties) for those entities having positions on the continuum? Remember, lower organisms do not even have the parts of the brain still active even when consciousness is absent (unconscious), such as the brainstem.
Incidentally, the cellular activities of amoebae are no more complex than those of most plants or fungi. You know what's coming next...

Will unconscious endangered species such as the Joshua tree be protected if we no longer consider them alive?

Trees are unconscious, but make decisions as they grow and respond to the environment. As such, they are intelligent but without a mind as we know it. See my page "Trees and Computation" at

http://iris.usc.edu/home/iris/rwagner/compute.html

Hey Hey's suggestion may be a form of mental chauvenism: preferring the form of mind we know to the mind we don't understand.

That's an interesting question. Is it possible to only have just a little consciousness? Does my cat know she exists? Maybe not, but she thinks, right? But what kind of strange thinking goes on in that brain? How 'bout cockroaches? Bacteria? Rocks? If, God forbid, someone cloned me, who would this new person be? Would she think like me? How did *I* get assigned to this body? At what point in the development of a human being does consciousness arise? Could we create a robot with real consciousness?

I know we can't really answer these questions, but how about this basic one: What is consciousness? If life must include consciousness (the question proposed in this thread) then maybe we ought to define consciousness.

I don't think many of us would consider buildings to be alive but we have protection orders on them for reasons such as historical architectural value and so on. So we'd have to look at unconscious species similarly.

So robots ARE intelligent? IQ tests for trees? Come on Rick, trees REACT to the environment. This is not the same as making decisions. Anthropomorphism is a bad starting point for most arguments of this type.

Why chauvenism? Just taxonomical! Get scientific!

Yes, robots are intelligent; at least the smart ones are. Some say that in a few years we may be lucky if they keep us as pets.

The decision making by trees satisfies computational models for intelligence. Don't let your consciousness mental bias distract you from recognizing a new way of seeing things. I have worked with trees (bonsai) for over 20 years. Plants behave intelligently. Just watch a jungle grow.

Reaction to environment is what keeps people alive too. We may be faster and more sophisticated, but don't let that go to your head.

More sophisticated, that is the key. Actually, MUCH more. So then we have a range to partition. My point was "life must include consciousness" not intelligence. Trees are not conscious, so the partition is set above them. Likewise, other species (most actually) have the partition set above them. I'll take your type of stance here and ask, "Is there evidence of consciousness for all species?" If not, then presently my proposal could be considered valid. We can then have a mechanism to differentiate the problematic maelstrom of so called 'life', much of which is primitive enough to be viewed as complex chemistry, period. Maybe we could give another name to the species without consciousness, e.g. sublife or slife. Then even the evolutionary tree picture could be modified, with an overlay that consists of:

chemistry
biochemistry
complex biochemistry
slife
life

Expanded consciousness might enable a superlife (elife?). The ultimate consciousness might enable a deity-like form (godlife or glife?).

So:

chemistry
biochemistry
complex biochemistry
slife
life
elife
glife

There might be more stages between the latter three.

After glife (or at the stage of glife) there might be universelife. Then the universe could be viewed as a kind of life (ulife). A sort of super Gaia, but not quite as that would mean the Gaia hypothesis would have to be accepted with the complications it has for categorising elements of life, or maybe not.

Currently the evolutionary tree has three major domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya and all cellular species (except maybe nanobacteria) fit into those. It does, of course exclude viruses, viroids, prions and a few other replicating elements. All except some members of the Eucarya would be excluded from my proposed newly defined "life" category. I realise there will be complications, such as broader definitions of consciousness permitting other species to enter the life category, but all previous and current definitions of life have complications (are viruses alive, as they aren't cellular; are mules alive, as they don't reproduce; and so on). We would have to deal with these as and when they crop up.

My proposal gives a clear route for the evolution of humans (that some suggest is currently halted), with the self-modifications (not necessarily following Darwinian mechanisms) to give elife and then....God. At that stage we could even anticipate the co-operation with other life-forms (extraterrrial) and we might become Universe together. Incidentally I use the term glife as an analogy of the 'God' of religions, as the power and scope would be similar to that imagined (by some) for God, but there would be no silly worship or adoration elements to this entity. Perhaps a better term could be devised. At the stage of glife (maybe before) I imagine a consciousness only form, with no chemistry, however complex. After this, the whole universe would be life. The matter of parallel or multiple universes, higher dimensions, death of the universe, replacement of the universe and so on need some thought.

ps Maybe i have come upon my next book. This time fiction. Maybe not.

chemistry
biochemistry
complex biochemistry
slife
life
elife
glife
ulife
.... . . . . . . .

You can't even prove that you are conscious!

What was your last book?

Stuart Hameroff's's theory is that the invention of consciousness (by nature via evolution) caused the Cambrian Explosion. The first multi-celled organism with specialized thinking cells (neurons) had a computational advantage (speed and sophistication) over others, and an arms race was on with spiraling predation and defensive strategies ensuing.

I think it's a very plausible theory. It implies that consciousness is necessary for sensing and control (robotics algorithms) in animals.

Hey Hey, you are awesome, man! Where in the hell did you come up with all this stuff from! You have a hell of a lot of imagination. I need the name of your sci-fies pronto, please! Oh! And by the way, I totally agree with you on your proposal regarding new definitions to life. I think we need an upgrade to accomodate for the forthcoming future (the Consciousness Singularity in particular). I think the problem lies in the fact that the CS is a subject off the beaten path. We are a priviledged few aware and alert. The part that I don't understand in your proposal is regarding the stages, if you will, above 'life'. Can you explain a little bit what you mean or maybe refer me to a link regarding the subject?

hmm ive been thinking the tree thing over for a long time, its a hard thing to say really, we have to look at the very basics of consciousness. If a tree is conscious, I would presume it would not be in the manner we know. I would also assume that since a tree cannot see, smell or hear, it would have to rely on feeling and taste. Im not entirely sure if a tree could taste, but through its roots it remains a possiblity? The tree does show certain aspects that are similar to other lifeforms, a tree does try to get its branches up to reach sunlight as a hunter goes deep into the woods for food. A tree also will search for water with its roots and entice animals to spread its seeds through bearing fruit. A tree also has a egg of sorts, the seed and their are in some species, male and female plants. Is this just evolution? is consciousness a form of evolution? many questions can be raised when one tries to think of a tree as concious.

trees...demonstrate...pure sensing...or that which is without thought...yet it knows...nonetheless

An apple tree was dead-on target at Newton's head! Maybe 'it' knew we would then honor it's kind with all thereafter discoveries and inventions that led to the invention of the internet, the existence of this website, the creation of this forum and the starting of this thread. Which, consecuently lead to the posting of this reply.

I don't know anyone who claims plants are conscious.

Actually, Rick has a point, and he has posed a very good question.

I think that in order to find anything resembling an answer, one of the first things that we must each ask ourselves is: "What is reality?"

Rick's question is rather broad ranging but it does open up numerous avenues of thought to pursue, which is only apt in such a discussion. If properly approached the discussion will define itself and properly limit the topic as we go along. ...at least enough for the time being.

This takes more in depth consideration than has been offered thus far. The answer involves a myriad of current disciplines and subjects, not the least of which is a bit of philosophy. Philosophy without logic or rational thought, however, is about as useful as tits on a boar.

In a lot of ways, one way to approach the topic is to say that consciousness is about data architecture and data processing.

Boys and girls...in the posts to follow, you are about to be treated to a new way of looking at the topic.

First, I want you to see my previous posts on this board about the properties of water, magnets and DNA Music, et al. The "Useless Tea" allegory even contains a part of the answer.

In essence, I think that you'll find that we need to redefine not only our definitions of consciousness, but our very understanding of it. We quite simply do not have the proper terminology to use at this point in time.

I think that it was a damned good question, Rick.

Now...on with the show.

...just something to think about...

Spiral Dynamics Theory of Human Development

"What I am proposing is that the psychology of mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiral process, marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man´s existential problems change." Dr. Clare Graves

For more information visit: wysiwyg://17/http://www.wie.org/j22/beck.asp
www.integralnaked.org
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interview...w_bms_kk_2.cfm/


http://www.media.mit.edu/spi/
No longer active as of Spring 2004, the
Spatial Imaging Group at the MIT Media Lab developed

new technology and interfaces for high-quality 3D displays. Research included: designing new hologram formats and optical printers; electro-holographic displays and
methods for computing holograms; spatial interaction and information design; rapid rendering for spatial displays; and viewer-tracked autostereoscopic displays.

Some of you will find these next few entries to be very boring...but there is a basic underlying principle at work here that you should pay attention to. Variations on "data architetcure" and "data information" theories are being used throughout the scientific world.



http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2001/05/d/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws of System Completeness
Darrell Mann
Industrial Fellow, Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Bath
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
Phone: +44 (1225) 826465
Fax: +44 (1225) 826928
E-mail: D.L.Mann@bath.ac.uk

Introduction

This article is about the TRIZ Law of Technical Completeness and how it compares to the findings of researchers from other disciplines. Specifically, the article compares TRIZ work with that of Stafford Beer with his ‘Viable System Model’, and the work on the application of Game Theory to business strategy described in Nalebuff and Brandenburger’s seminal book, ‘Co-opetition’.

The article seeks to draw together the experiences from the three pieces of research in order to derive hopefully useful new perspectives on the way we might interpret and use the TRIZ Law in both technical and non-technical scenarios.

The TRIZ Perspective

The TRIZ Law of System Completeness (Reference 1) describes four essential elements of a system as shown in Figure 1. The Law requires that all components are present and that ‘if any component is missing, the technical system does not exist, if any component fails, the system does not ‘survive’’ (Reference 2).


< snip >
Beer’s work describes the necessary conditions for system viability, and concludes that there are five; policy, intelligence, implementation, control and co-ordination.

< snip >

Generally speaking, although the level of recursion in any given organisation can be taken to the level of an individual, it is more likely to stop unfolding a structure at the complete work task level (e.g. a manufacturing cell).

< snip >
‘Co-ordination’ in the VSM context suggests that the more teams “share common standards, approaches and values, the greater the chances that spontaneous lateral communication will occur, resulting in less ‘re-invention of the wheel’ and more chance of synergy.

< snip >
The ‘system completeness law’ concept has rather more value in non-technical areas, however, in that there seems to be much more inclination to try and trim things out of a system without realising the likely downstream consequences.

===============================================================

So, we learn not only how to think, but how to think properly about any topic that arises. So...not only does our consciousness need to conform to the law of system completeness, our thinking... our thoughts do as well.

According the the theory as explained in the paper quoted above, certain "architectures" must exists before a "system" becomes functional. We can each agree or disagree with its consclusions, but there is plenty to think about, not with standing our disagreements with the author(s).

The problem is that the physical "architecture" that is required for consciousness may not be what we think it is...

In fact, upon careful consideration, the very word "consciousness" may not be at all proper or accurate.

we do not have to have a current unfailing definition of consciousness to accept my proposal. we simply have to have A reasonable definition today and then we can move on with the discussion. until a definition that supersedes the current (i do not mind if this is tomorrow) then we can assume we have sufficient material to discuss. how else does science progress? we deal a hand and play a game with what we have and according to the present rules. when the rules change we take them on board and get on the with the game again. let's do that. the rest is diversionary and part of the typical ego trip. if we can't put that aside we go nowhere.

This article is about data elements in "citation information." In view of other things that I've shared on this board, and in view of the above posts on this thread, you should see certain co-relations in the information.

Your brain - your 'mind' - processes data elements inh a fashion that has yet to be completely duplicated, although as Rick has already stated, researchers around the world aren't too many years away from matching the capabilities of the human brain.


Consider the following to be a multi-leveled "allegory" representing one method of how we process information.

http://baowww.uoregon.edu/glossary.htm


PROPOSAL NO: 2003-03
DATE: May 16, 2003
REVISED:

NAME: Definition of Data Elements for Article Level Description

SOURCE: California Digital Library

SUMMARY: This paper proposes additional data elements in the MARC 21 bibliographic format that contain parsed citation information for the description of journal articles. This will facilitate translation of non-MARC citation data into the MARC format and linking to citation-related services. Options are: 1) Definition of a subfield in field 773; and 2) Definition of a new field 363.

excerpted

I'm not slammin' on anyone, here, Hey Hey. ;O)

I'm just offering some material for further consideration. Indeed, how else will science progress?

...you see...whether you know it or not, the "rules" have already changed...

Actually, they're changing almost daily...

The pradigm has already changed and the new meme is right on its heels.

Consider the information thoughtfully and with true objectivity.

Indeed, I've freely offered my raw research to all, to use as they will, to ignore as they will.

I've shared enough information for any one of you to be able write numerous papers, books and articles...and for use in your next seminar in the south of France....and I've shared it freely and without caveat.

When combined with other material on this board the material that I've offered will help you to lay a new foundation for - and to achieve a new (or at least a more complete) understanding of - 'consciousness.'

The info that I've shared so far on this thread is very basic and can be used to assist others in better understanding the topic at hand.

If a person considers what I share here thoughtfully, honestly and without the use of logical fallacy, they will see several common threads running throughout the raw data that is more than worth the time that it takes to read it.

...and in case you didn't know, the raw data itself - of which I've only shared a very small fraction on this board - has been reviewed by a physicist as well as a professor of biology. (The theologians and Jews didn't like the material, however. In context, it all proves that God isn't what they think He is. I'm a Heretic and a "Godless Goyim," now.)


http://www.answers.com/topic/element


el•e•ment (ĕl'ə-mənt)
n.
A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity.
elements The basic assumptions or principles of a subject.
Mathematics.
A member of a set.
A point, line, or plane.
A part of a geometric configuration, such as an angle in a triangle.
The generatrix of a geometric figure.
Any of the terms in the rectangular array of terms that constitute a matrix or determinant.
Chemistry & Physics. A substance composed of atoms having an identical number of protons in each nucleus. Elements cannot be reduced to simpler substances by normal chemical means.
One of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water, formerly regarded as a fundamental constituent of the universe.
Electricity. The resistance wire in an electrical appliance such as a heater or an oven.
elements The forces that constitute the weather, especially severe or inclement weather: outside paint that had been damaged by the elements.
An environment naturally suited to or associated with an individual: He is in his element when traveling. The business world is her element.
A distinct group within a larger community: the dissident element on campus.
A part of a military force, especially:
A ground unit in an air force comparable to a platoon.
A unit of an air force equal to two or three aircraft.
elements The bread and wine of the Eucharist.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin elementum, perhaps ultimately from lmn, first three letters of the second half of the Canaanite alphabet, recited by ancient scribes when learning it.]

SYNONYMS element, component, constituent, factor, ingredient. These nouns denote one of the individual parts of which a composite entity is made up: the grammatical elements of a sentence; jealousy, a component of his character; melody and harmony, two of the constituents of a musical composition; ambition as a key factor in her success; humor, an effective ingredient of a speech.

One of the first things that we must all do in any serious discussion is to define the terms that we are using. I think that in most cases there is no little value in understanding the historical uses of those terms.

In attempting to understand and to properly define consciousness, we are actually searching for it's "quintessence."

...we are searching for the elements of consciousness...


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...e:Fifth+Element

quin•tes•sence [ kwin téss'nss ]

noun

Definitions:

1. embodiment: the purest or most perfect example of something

2. chemistry extract: the purest extract or essence of a substance, containing the substance's properties in their most concentrated form

3. philosophy fifth element: in ancient and medieval philosophy, the fifth element after earth, air, fire, and water. Heavenly bodies were said to be made of it.

4. cosmology hypothetical repulsive force: a hypothetical repulsive force in cosmology that permeates the whole of space and counteracts the force of gravity

[15th century. Via French < medieval Latin quinta essentia "fifth essence"]

quin•tes•sen•tial [ kwìntə sénsh'l ]adj
quin•tes•sen•tial•lyadv

I have two reasons for presenting this material in such a seemingly random fashion. One, is that I am still in the process of organizing the material for use in a book - possibly a series of books. The second is that such a presentation of the material will jar a person's conscious and will often cause them to consider things in a fashion that is new to them. I keep people from becoming too comfortable in their ruts... Well...some refer to it as calcification.

I found the following to be interesting not only for the reference to consciousness, but because I was a Chef's Assistant and Kitchen Manager for several years... Yes, I am a very good cook. Working in award winning restaraunts does that to ya after awhile. If you aren't aware of "umami" and taste memory... well...

How we process taste and smell are also elements of consciousness.

(See: Musical notes, two notes create a third and separate note. Also see: fractals and Golden Mean.)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...69/ai_105735781

Whenever we consume food, we instinctively perceive much more than its obvious flavors. Our palates experience aspects of food that we may not understand or even be aware of. Any dish's flavor can be dramatically altered by our unique sense of taste or perception. The most basic function of food preference, or sense of taste, is the ability to detect the almost indiscernible subtleties of the foods we eat.

There is a whole range of tastes that we, as chefs, can tap into to make our dishes more appealing. If we are conscious of how our diners experience the food we cook, we can prepare dishes that far transcend the basic purpose of filling their stomachs.

TASTE SENSATION

As culinarians, we try to create the perfect balance between the four basic tastes: sweet, salty, sour, and bitter. As diners, however, we have all experienced that intensity that somehow eludes definition: that enigmatic fifth taste known as umami. Yet up until the nineteenth century, the Western world believed that our mouths could not sense anything beyond the basic four tastes. In actuality, however, our ability to perceive other tastes has been known throughout the world for thousands of years. In ancient Greece, Aristotle identified seven basic tastes: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, spicy, astringent, and sandy. As early as 1000 B.C., the Chinese documented five basic tastes whereas believers in ancient Indian yogic principles identified eight. Nevertheless, these early classifications were based more on observation than scientific fact.


excerpted.
===============================================

(Keyword: Awareness.)

(NOTE: The following article is particularly interesting in that many of the author's underlying assumptions of the are already outdated.)

http://www.friesian.com/elements.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE GREEK ELEMENTS


The four classical elements were independently proposed by early Presocratic philosophers: water (Thales), air (Anaximenes), earth (Xenophanes), and fire (Heraclitus). Empedocles proposed that they all existed together in fixed quantities from the beginning. Plato later conceived of them as consisting of atoms with the geometrical shapes of four of the five regular geometrical solids that had been discovered by the Pythagoreans but described by Plato (in the Timaeus). We now call these the Platonic Solids. Their surfaces consist entirely of regular triangles (3, the tetrahedron; 8, the octahedron; and 20, the icosahedron), squares (6, the cube), and pentagons (12, the dodecahedron). These are, of course, not the true shapes of atoms; but it turns out that they are some of the true shapes of packed atoms and molecules, namely crystals: The mineral salt (halite, NaCl) occurs in cubic crystals; fluorite (calcium floride, CaF2) in octahedrons; and pyrite ("Fool's Gold," iron sulfide, FeS2) in dodecahedrons [1]; etc. Aristotle discarded Plato's mathematical interest and saw the elements as combinations of two sets of opposite qualities, hot & cold, wet & dry. Aristotle's view was ultimately the accepted one all through the Middle Ages.


Excerpted

This is interesting in that it shows how much our current thinking about consciousness is affected by the past. In other words, many of the descriptives and definitions that we presently use...are hundreds of years old. That's not always a bad thing...but it's not always a good thing, either. In other words, current discoveries are being "mis-interpeted" by our use of terminolgies that are more than a thousand years old.

This is a factor that must be taken in to account in any discussion of the topic. If you read the entire article, you will see that our understanding of consciousness is also greatly and profoundly affected by the history of the culture that we each live in. Whether Greek, European, Irish, Indian, Chinese or Polynesian, your understanding of the topic will probably be so profoundly different than others that although you speak the same language, you will not be truly communicating. The good news is that we each have something new and different to bring to the table when we discuss the topic.


http://friesian.com/elements.htm
THE FOUR HUMORS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With a theory based on that of the four elements, by the Middle Ages health was thought to depend on a balance of four fluids, or humors, in the human body: fire corresponded to blood; air to yellow bile; water to phlegm; and earth to black bile. The notion that health depended on the balance of the four elements arose shortly after Empedocles introduced his theory. The theory of the four humors developed by the time of Hippocrates (c.460-c.377 BC). We still say that people can be in a "good humor" or a "bad humor," and terms derived from the Greek or Latin names of the humors are still sometimes used to describe moods, attitudes, or personalities:


excerpted

In reference to my previous post on this thread, here is a topic that offers a more solid foundation for my comments there. If each of us have something new and different to offer about knowledge and understanding of consciousness, that means that there are almost infinite permutations of understanding and of knowledge. The factorial is over two hundred...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation
Mathematics
In mathematics, especially in abstract algebra and related areas, a permutation is a bijection from a finite set X onto itself.

In combinatorics, the term permutation has a traditional meaning, which is used to include ordered lists without repetition, but not exhaustive (so of less than maximum length).

The concept of a permutation expresses the idea that distinguishable objects may be arranged in various different orders. For instance, with the numbers one to six, each possible order makes a list of the numbers, without repetitions. One such permutation is: "3, 4, 6, 1, 2, 5".

There are a number of ways in which the permutation concept may be defined more formally. A permutation is an ordered sequence containing each symbol from a set once and only once; neither "1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6" nor "1, 2, 4, 5, 6" are permutations. One can therefore point to the essential difference between a permutation and a set: the elements of a permutation are arranged in a specified order.

Keeping my previous posts on this board in mind...lets' return for a moment to data architectures. It's all about how each of us processes data, and about how we as human beings process data, whether consciously or subconsciously.


http://www.fcw.com/article88582-04-18-05-Print
Keeping data flowing
In the quest to build leaner, more nimble agency systems, attention turns to data

"Data reference model hits the streets" [Federal Computer Week, Nov. 8]

"Data model changes coming" [FCW.com, Feb. 3, 2005]

"Tool for the data plumber" [Federal Computer Week, April 18, 2005]

"Unblock the data clog" [Federal Computer Week, April 18, 2005]

"Making the case for better data" [Federal Computer Week, April 18, 2005]

"Sharing drives DHS data project" [Federal Computer Week, April 18, 2005]

Data architecture's future
The International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 11179 standard is one of the fixtures in the data architecture space and already has been a critical piece of a few government projects. It is also part of the federal government’s data reference model.

Despite the standard’s success, developers continue to search for ways to improve it. Indeed, some data architects are now seeking to push beyond the standard. ISO/IEC 11179 has limits because it primarily handles structured data and requires some human intervention, not computers alone, to achieve interoperability among systems.

"That has been a good start," said Brand Niemann, co-chairman of the Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICOP) within the CIO Council's Best Practices Committee. "But the new paradigm is to take that up a level and to make [a data architecture approach] apply to both structured and unstructured data and make it machine-processable."

And that new paradigm is semantic computing. This approach seeks to overcome cultural obstacles created by different vocabularies for different IT systems. For example, one system might refer to "price," while another system uses "cost," according to a SICOP white paper on semantic technologies.

To reconcile such differences, semantic computing seeks to rationalize divergent information sets through software. The idea is to structure data formally to eliminate ambiguity and allow computers to make automated inferences when performing tasks such as data retrieval. The approach thus avoids the use of "point-to-point data and terminology mappings, processes that are both time - and personnel - intensive," the white paper states.

One advantage of semantic computing is that computers would be able to interact with Web services software components without human intervention. Michael Beckley, co-founder and vice president of product strategy at Appian, said semantic computing is mostly wishful thinking at this point. But he added that the concept foreshadows computer systems that "will be far more pervasive users of the Internet than we are."

Semantic computing may also shape the future of the data reference model. Members of the federal DRM Working Group have asked SICOP to create a semantic computing profile for the model. Michael Daconta, metadata program manager at the Homeland Security Department and leader of the working group, said semantic computing is not ready to roll out at an operational level, adding that SICOP is the perfect group to investigate the technology road map.

— John Moore

So...semantic computing - based in part upon how the brain processes information - the definitions and histories of terminoligies...philosophy and data arcitectures...cultural, historical and individual differences...mathematics and permutations...it's all seems rather complex.

Here's how one agency is attempting to cope with such complexities...

The underlying principle might be one to learn from in our own attempts to understand and process the information on consciousness that is presently available...


http://www.fcw.com/article88582-04-18-05-Print

How big a bite?
Management approval sets the stage for the data architecture. At this phase, agencies face a dilemma: Can they reconcile the push for a government-wide approach with the need to keep projects manageable?

To make a go of it, Kimberly Nelson, the Environmental Protection Agency's chief information officer, said agencies must make a broad commitment to enterprise architecture as the right thing to do. But the initial data architecture initiative need not be an all-encompassing, agency-wide affair. Agencies that have established a general architectural framework can "drill down where [they] have programmatic priorities," she said.

But although smaller may be better, architects are counseled against building a data architecture for every information technology project.

Fred Collins, senior enterprise architect in IBM's Global Government Services Division, recommended that agencies tackle data architecture by line of business or an aspect of a line of business. Lines of business, such as recreation or law enforcement, cut across organizational boundaries and multiple projects. This approach lets a data architecture cover a wide swath of an organization using a more realistic scope of work.

< snip >

(NOTE: If you read the entire article, you'll that they really mean is that they were all speaking English…but they weren’t speaking the same language. Almost every individual used a different label in order to describe the exact same data sets. No, it’s not a case of “I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to.” It’s a case of “I say, Tomato, you say avocado, while George says airplane, Jane says chartreuse and Buffy says, vampire.” and they’re all describing the exact same thing. Another way of looking at it is if one person states, “Think clearly” …one listener will hear, “Belief” while another hears, “ Opinion” and yet another hears, “Ideology” while a fourth hears “Religion” and a fifth hears something else entirely…and none of the listeners begin to think clearly. So it is when people discuss consciousness...)

Now, for a llittle "hard" science...

(This is why I've refernced my previous posts on this board, including those posts about magnets, "crystals," DNA "music," and vibration. They are the 'background' or 'backstory' for several posts that I'll be making today and in the future.)

http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/wormas.html

Wormholes and possible new physics in biological length scales

1. Wormhole magnetic fields
Topological field quantization is one of the basic differences between TGD and ordinary quantum field theories. In TGD space-time is regarded as a surface of the 8-dimensional space H=M^4_+xCP_2 and classical gauge fields are induced from the curvature of the CP_2 spinor connection. The compactness of CP_2, as opposed to non-compactness of the space of the ordinary spinor connections, implies that the imbedding of a given gauge field typically fails on 3-dimensional surfaces and this implies many-sheeted space-time structure with different sheets having finite M^4_+ projection and outer boundary. At the boundaries the gauge fluxes flow from the smaller sheet to a larger one via tiny wormholes with a size determined by CP_2 size.

The simplest instance of the topological field quantization is the replacement of the classical magnetic fields with bundles of flux tubes parallel to the field lines: the flux tubes are cylindrical 3-surfaces with an outer boundary. A more exotic instance are ``wormhole magnetic fields'' consisting of two identical tubular space-time sheets and with charged wormholes situated at the boundaries of the flux tubes acting as the sources of the magnetic fields. These configurations are vacuum configurations in the sense that they do not contain ordinary matter at all. They can have also finite size both spatially and also in time direction (!) in case that they are topologically condensed on a larger space-time sheet and there is a small energy flow from the larger space-time sheet at time T_1 and back at time T_2> T_1. Wormhole magnetic fields glued to the space-time sheets containing ordinary bio-matter, are good candidates for the physical realization of cognitive representations. These almost vacuum space-time sheets glued to the material world giving rise to a cognitive representation would be very much like physical measurement apparata introducing a very slight perturbation of the system to be measured. Wormhole magnetic could be even regarded as the quintessence of the living systems.

You have stated in your many postings above not one shred of evidence for this statement. I look forward to your elucidation or references in support.

why do so many people assume that computers will eventually assume some property analogous to human consciousness? how can anyone state this when we no certain understanding as to what consciousness is. having said that, of course we have some regular and limited hypotheses, or else I would not have proposed what I did. as new hypotheses are forwarded I am prepared to modify my proposal, though I maintain that the essence is and will remain appropriate. R there any biologists out there to add a considered critique? apologies if any responses above r from the same, but they seem to be from the physical side.

and more

eventually
eukaryotic construct
with wow
such biochemistry

eventually
anthropomorphic android
with yes
cognisant mind

eventually
disembodied consciousness
with pain
at the speed of light

eventually
looking outward
with all
to know

eventually
looking inward
beyond all
and more

©2006 Hey Hey

I think it's because so many people confuse consciousness with intelligence. For example, the Oxford professor of physics, Roger Penrose, in his book, The Emperor's New Mind, proved that computers can never be conscious and concluded that therefore computers can never be intelligent.

Computers are already intelligent (in some ways), but I agree that electronic digital computers will probably never be consious.

Rick, enlighten us on the subject of why 'intelligent' does apply to some computers. How is the intelligence different/similar to our own?

Intelligent behavior is achieving goals. Therefore, any machine that performs as it should is exhibiting intelligence. Take for example the goal of selling merchandise. The goal is to get a fair price for an object of sale. Suppose you buy an item from a store. If the store clerk inspects the object, decides on the correct price, receives your ten pound note, and gives you the correct change, we might say that the store clerk is behaving intelligently. Right?

Now take the case of a vending machine. If the machine takes your money, delivers the right product and gives you the right change, and does it every time, we might say that in some cases it is actually more intelligent than some human store clerks.

Now take the case of being beaten at chess by a computer. If the machine beats you every time, can we say that the machine is more intelligent, when it comes to chess, than you are?

hmm.. one the subject of life must include consciousness, lets hammer out a few key points

a. What is it to be conscious? Reality is defined by the interpritation of 5 inputs (senses), if one realizes the reality around them, they are theirfore conscious. However, if these stimulants were to be created by the brain itself, a reality could naturally exist entirely in ones own mind.

b. There was a article posted on Brain Meta a while ago that discussed a man who functioned in every way, except he had no conscious. He was living and breathing, being fed through a tube, but was alive non the less.

a. OK, but we have to get basic and allow the term to have some meaning and boundaries or else we are stuffed, as with most issues. I mean, what is life, for example, the fundamental basis of the whole proposal here?

b. When one dies it is possible to utilise tissues and organs for quite some time for purposes of donation. This is because the cells in those tissues are still alive. Your last comment is getting off track. Unless you believe that, for example, leucocytes have consciousness. Then I find it difficult to explore this proposal with you.

hmm its hard to say Hey Hey, I mean there are so many fundamental points that have yet to be answered. What is it to be alive anyways? being declared legally dead and actually being dead seem to be two very diffrent things. Not only that but the brain remains active about 20 days after the body dies, is one dead then or what? I wonder if the question "Life must include consciousness?" can even be answered because it is difficult to even pinpoint "What is life?" and "What is consciousness?"

One thing we do need to be aware of in a discussion of this sort is anthropocentrism, and when trying to discuss something as diverse as life or consciousness, we must, IMO, get away from this paradigm. I feel there are definitely other forms of consciousness. One preconception I've noticed in this discussion is the idea that consciousness implies self-awareness. I believe this is a false preconception. I know that my cat is conscious because she has all the basic superficial biological requirements to form an awareness of her environment, ears, eyes, etc etc. And I know that she has memory based on conditioning. I also don't think she is any less alive than you or I regardless of whether or not she is self-aware.

One concept that I have come to embrace is that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. Consciousness is an intrisic aspect of things that are alive. This implies that any organisms that interact in the physical universe have some sort of awareness, or consciousness. This concept does require a more open understanding of consciousness. But like someone said earlier in the thread, we should be looking for an understanding of consciousness, rather than dwelling on making a concrete definition of it.






I'll go ahead and claim that. Plants are conscious. Their subjective experience is much different than that of the humans, however, I do believe they are conscious.




Robots and computers, however, don't react to the physical three dimensional environment that we live in. They run tests of meaningless symbols against other meaningless symbols, and give us a result of a meaningless symbol that we interpret. Computers are nothing without our input, and then interpretation of their output. They are completely dependent on us for their "intelligence." Going back to my cat: She can, as a conscious being, subconsciously calculate the trajectory of a bird in flight, jump at the exact right time, and catch the bird, without any training or input from a human. That is more intelligent than any computer that currently exists. And we consider cats to be fairly unintelligent creatures. Perhaps there is a certain perceived intelligence that is inherit in the complexity of life. The more complex, the more intelligent? Dunno. Maybe its the other way around. Sorry,,, tangent there.



Maybe more consistent, rather than intelligent? A computer's ability to interpret symbols with perfect consistency with a far greater rate than humans, to me, does not imply intelligence in anything except the people who designed the machine.