I am certainly no expert on the matter but just a curious explorer of this topic.  However, I want to suggest Nova Spivack’s talks and writings on the Global Consciousness and the Web, which might be interesting to you.   Spivack believes that while m…

I do think that intelligence, consciousness, and feelings is highly subjective and open to interpretation. If a computer were to independently think outside its own algorithms, that would be amazing. However, from an explanatory angle, I do not know how this would be possible. It may be that a computer does not need to think independently for consciousness, as I do not think independently. I have been conditioned to think the way that I do from years of experience and inputs.

I do think that intelligence, consciousness, and feelings is highly subjective and open to interpretation. If a computer were to independently think outside its own algorithms, that would be amazing. However, from an explanatory angle, I do not know how this would be possible. It may be that a computer does not need to think independently for consciousness, as I do not think independently. I have been conditioned to think the way that I do from years of experience and inputs.

Mortals tend to get lost in their own mental masturbations. There are different kinds of conscious awareness, different kinds and degree of consciousness. I believe it is closer to the true of consciousness being a basic primordial force in the cosmos.

For me, I am interested in advancing and developing a truly liberated conscious awareness that grows in upward spirals exhibited in liberating consciousness.

I am more concerned with feeding consciousness, thus feeding people, esp. our innocent children. Namaste, Peta ~ http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
c/s

Mortals tend to get lost in their own mental masturbations. There are different kinds of conscious awareness, different kinds and degree of consciousness. I believe it is closer to the true of consciousness being a basic primordial force in the cosmos.

For me, I am interested in advancing and developing a truly liberated conscious awareness that grows in upward spirals exhibited in liberating consciousness.

I am more concerned with feeding consciousness, thus feeding people, esp. our innocent children. Namaste, Peta ~ http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
c/s

I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

So suppose a moon-sized asteroid were to crash into earth and destroy all life on our planet, including every single human. It seems to me the universe would keep right on ticking, without missing a beat.

Do you disagree? If so, HUMAN consciousness must not be as fundamental as you seem to be suggesting.

Suppose further there is no other intelligent life in the universe (a premise I hope is false, but seems tenable given the evidence).

Would consciousness still exist in some primordial form, even if no living creatures exist in the universe anymore? If so where would it be residing? If it remains, why couldn't it reside in what we would consider non-living entities?

Buddhism appeals to my sensibilities a lot. I too believe in the doctrine of emptiness and interconnectedness. But the way this idea makes sense for me is that everything we consider 'nuggets' of distinct identity are actually the result of the complex interplay of simpler components. From this perspective objects, as well as consciousness, are an emergent property, and don't have an inherent independent existence of their own.

I appears to me that you view consciousness differently, as 'primordial' and fundamental, the raw material that grounds all existence.

That seems a little to convenient and self serving for humanity to ring true for me. Consciousness is what makes humans special (at least so far), so it is not surprising that to feed human ego we would come to believe it to be of paramount importance in grounding the universe.

If there is a consciousness that undergirds the universe, it is likely to be on an such an entirely different plane from that which we possess as to be irrelevant to the question of whether the web (or intelligent individual machines) will ever achieve consciousness.

–Dean

I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

So suppose a moon-sized asteroid were to crash into earth and destroy all life on our planet, including every single human. It seems to me the universe would keep right on ticking, without missing a beat.

Do you disagree? If so, HUMAN consciousness must not be as fundamental as you seem to be suggesting.

Suppose further there is no other intelligent life in the universe (a premise I hope is false, but seems tenable given the evidence).

Would consciousness still exist in some primordial form, even if no living creatures exist in the universe anymore? If so where would it be residing? If it remains, why couldn't it reside in what we would consider non-living entities?

Buddhism appeals to my sensibilities a lot. I too believe in the doctrine of emptiness and interconnectedness. But the way this idea makes sense for me is that everything we consider 'nuggets' of distinct identity are actually the result of the complex interplay of simpler components. From this perspective objects, as well as consciousness, are an emergent property, and don't have an inherent independent existence of their own.

I appears to me that you view consciousness differently, as 'primordial' and fundamental, the raw material that grounds all existence.

That seems a little to convenient and self serving for humanity to ring true for me. Consciousness is what makes humans special (at least so far), so it is not surprising that to feed human ego we would come to believe it to be of paramount importance in grounding the universe.

If there is a consciousness that undergirds the universe, it is likely to be on an such an entirely different plane from that which we possess as to be irrelevant to the question of whether the web (or intelligent individual machines) will ever achieve consciousness.

–Dean

I'm not aware of any near-death experiences that have been scientifically validated.

Even in a so-called “bare” state of consciousness, trillions of signals are flowing through a brain. I agree that consciousness does not imply any particular high-level thought. In general, consciousness of a particular “thing” (even color, the wind, etc.) seems to be proportionate to the number of neurons engaged in representing the thing. If your eyes are open and you're not concentrating, hundreds of millions of neurons are still processing the visual information which is why it's hard not to be conscious of basic visual stimulus.

When I speak of consciousness, I'm not talking about thoughts either (at least not in the usual sense which are things that we hear in our head). I think more in terms of structures and their power within the mind. The mind is composed of billions of micro structures which continually assemble and disassemble into more complex and powerful structures. The more powerful a structure is, the greater influence it has over the other structures.

To me, the process of assembly and disassembly of structures in a mind is true thinking. What we hear in our head (the usual interpretation of what a though is) is the verbal after-the-fact interpretation of the deeper “thought structures” that are the real movers and shakers. What we hear in our head is therefore just a trace of what has already happened.

Out of interest, why do you think we lose consciousness when we go to sleep?

Cheers,
Graham

I'm not aware of any near-death experiences that have been scientifically validated.

Even in a so-called “bare” state of consciousness, trillions of signals are flowing through a brain. I agree that consciousness does not imply any particular high-level thought. In general, consciousness of a particular “thing” (even color, the wind, etc.) seems to be proportionate to the number of neurons engaged in representing the thing. If your eyes are open and you're not concentrating, hundreds of millions of neurons are still processing the visual information which is why it's hard not to be conscious of basic visual stimulus.

When I speak of consciousness, I'm not talking about thoughts either (at least not in the usual sense which are things that we hear in our head). I think more in terms of structures and their power within the mind. The mind is composed of billions of micro structures which continually assemble and disassemble into more complex and powerful structures. The more powerful a structure is, the greater influence it has over the other structures.

To me, the process of assembly and disassembly of structures in a mind is true thinking. What we hear in our head (the usual interpretation of what a though is) is the verbal after-the-fact interpretation of the deeper “thought structures” that are the real movers and shakers. What we hear in our head is therefore just a trace of what has already happened.

Out of interest, why do you think we lose consciousness when we go to sleep?

Cheers,
Graham

If consciousness merely emerged from a suitable brain, then any suitable brain should be conscious, but in fact, dead brains for example are not conscious. So what is it about a live brain that makes it conscious? And does that mean that babies are not conscious until their brains develop sophisticated brainstates later in life? Furthermore, if we take a dead person's brain and hook it up to pumps that provide it with blood and other necessary nutrients, it doesn't 't suddenly reanimate and become conscious again. Consciousness is not merely a particular brainstate or matter of keeping a brain oxygenated. It can't be found anywhere in the brain either.

While the brain and brainstates may be correlated with sensory experience and cognition, that says nothing about bare consciousness. It is possible for example to be conscious without any particular sensory object or thought — a bare empty state of consciousness that for example, Buddhist monks cultivate. Similarly there are many documented reports of near-death experiences where clinically brain-dead medical patients have been revived and then reported being conscious and even seeing the operating room, even while their brainstates were flatlining.

The brain and brainstates are perhaps the most advanced expressions of consciousness, but not necessary to it. In the end consciousness is prior to the brain, just like spacetime is prior to the brain. Without spacetime you can't have a brain. Similarly without consciousness, nothing knows the brain's experience.

It's important to make a distinction between bare consciousness and any form of conceptuality or cognition. Conceptuality and cognition are perhaps emergent from the brain. When I speak of consciousness, I'm not speaking of thoughts, I'm speaking of that which simply knows thoughts and experiences. The knowing capacity of the mind is not a thought, and independent of brainstates too.

If consciousness merely emerged from a suitable brain, then any suitable brain should be conscious, but in fact, dead brains for example are not conscious. So what is it about a live brain that makes it conscious? And does that mean that babies are not conscious until their brains develop sophisticated brainstates later in life? Furthermore, if we take a dead person's brain and hook it up to pumps that provide it with blood and other necessary nutrients, it doesn't 't suddenly reanimate and become conscious again. Consciousness is not merely a particular brainstate or matter of keeping a brain oxygenated. It can't be found anywhere in the brain either.

While the brain and brainstates may be correlated with sensory experience and cognition, that says nothing about bare consciousness. It is possible for example to be conscious without any particular sensory object or thought — a bare empty state of consciousness that for example, Buddhist monks cultivate. Similarly there are many documented reports of near-death experiences where clinically brain-dead medical patients have been revived and then reported being conscious and even seeing the operating room, even while their brainstates were flatlining.

The brain and brainstates are perhaps the most advanced expressions of consciousness, but not necessary to it. In the end consciousness is prior to the brain, just like spacetime is prior to the brain. Without spacetime you can't have a brain. Similarly without consciousness, nothing knows the brain's experience.

It's important to make a distinction between bare consciousness and any form of conceptuality or cognition. Conceptuality and cognition are perhaps emergent from the brain. When I speak of consciousness, I'm not speaking of thoughts, I'm speaking of that which simply knows thoughts and experiences. The knowing capacity of the mind is not a thought, and independent of brainstates too.

Since brains are essentially manufactured in the womb from biological materials, why can't computers that are also manufactured be conscious? You write that you don't think that computers can be conscious, and yet brains can. What is the intrinsic difference between them? You seem to indicate that there's something about brains that are connected to the “quantum substrate”. What law of physics do brains have access to that computers don't?

Cheers,
Graham

Since brains are essentially manufactured in the womb from biological materials, why can't computers that are also manufactured be conscious? You write that you don't think that computers can be conscious, and yet brains can. What is the intrinsic difference between them? You seem to indicate that there's something about brains that are connected to the “quantum substrate”. What law of physics do brains have access to that computers don't?

Cheers,
Graham

This means that material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still primordial.

If you really look closely at what we can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only answer we can find. We cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience.

Waking experience, like dreaming, in fact also happens within the sphere of consciousness. We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond the scope of consciousness. Anything we prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

For this reason, the entire universe is contained within each of our individual consciousnesses, from each of our unique perspectives. It's similar to a hologram — each piece contains the whole from a different angle.

All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise.

As a result I don't believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don't think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It's primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There's nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

– Nova

This means that material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still primordial.

If you really look closely at what we can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only answer we can find. We cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience.

Waking experience, like dreaming, in fact also happens within the sphere of consciousness. We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond the scope of consciousness. Anything we prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

For this reason, the entire universe is contained within each of our individual consciousnesses, from each of our unique perspectives. It's similar to a hologram — each piece contains the whole from a different angle.

All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise.

As a result I don't believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don't think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It's primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There's nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

– Nova

With all due respect, I think you're making the same mistake that humans have made time and time again throughout history; inventing ways to make themselves special.

We used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth because we couldn't imagine that our planet would be subservient to something larger than us. Then we thought that the our Sun was at the center of the galaxy, but it's just in one of the arms. And still a majority of the human race thinks we're god's ultimate creation. And so forth.

I don't see any evidence that the human brain has any kind of special powers, and even if it did get some kind of property from quantum effects (which I personally don't believe), any computer could also benefit from the same effects since it's made of the same stuff.

Cheers,
Graham

With all due respect, I think you're making the same mistake that humans have made time and time again throughout history; inventing ways to make themselves special.

We used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth because we couldn't imagine that our planet would be subservient to something larger than us. Then we thought that the our Sun was at the center of the galaxy, but it's just in one of the arms. And still a majority of the human race thinks we're god's ultimate creation. And so forth.

I don't see any evidence that the human brain has any kind of special powers, and even if it did get some kind of property from quantum effects (which I personally don't believe), any computer could also benefit from the same effects since it's made of the same stuff.

Cheers,
Graham