Are Computers Aware?

[dust1n]

The implications are that AI would be a conscious being in theory, that is, if we were able to pull it off. Say we were able to pull off AI and the machine talks to us and says the feel and perceive. Are we to believe that the ones and zeroes equate to perceiving something, feeling something? I think so but each type of "perceiving" is different depending on which sense is being utilized. Obviously machine senses would be a different experience, a different way to perceive the world.

Yeah, our brains don't work off 1's and 0's. So even if a system of 1's and 0's was capable of being aware, or sentient, it would be a fundamentally different form then the consciousness of the brain...

If you want to equate sentience with purposefully programmed reactions to stimuli, I guess have at it.

 

[idav]

Yeah, our brains don't work off 1's and 0's. So even if a system of 1's and 0's was capable of being aware, or sentient, it would be a fundamentally different form then the consciousness of the brain...

Yes so it gets into the question of what qualifies as perceiving. How would a 1's and 0's type AI perceive the various frequencies of light that we can't even see ourselves? Maybe we could see it once we learn how to hardwire an infrared eye to our brain.

If you want to equate sentience with purposefully programmed reactions to stimuli, I guess have at it.

Sentience has to be able to adapt to its environment and learn from experience. Learning is just another form of programming, so in a sense our brains program themselves on top of whatever was hardcoded since birth.

 

[dust1n]

Yes so it gets into the question of what qualifies as perceiving. How would a 1's and 0's type AI perceive the various frequencies of light that we can't even see ourselves? Maybe we could see it once we learn how to hardwire an infrared eye to our brain.

Sentience has to be able to adapt to its environment and learn from experience. Learning is just another form of programming, so in a sense our brains program themselves on top of whatever was hardcoded since birth.

Like I said, bud... see it how you wish. I accept Searle's interpretation of understanding as being something vastly different then the interpretation of programmable inputs via ones and zeroes. The world doesn't work off ones and zeroes and neither do brains.

We'd have to agree to disagree.

 

[idav]

Like I said, bud... see it how you wish. I accept Searle's interpretation of understanding as being something vastly different then the interpretation of programmable inputs via ones and zeroes. The world doesn't work off ones and zeroes and neither do brains.

We'd have to agree to disagree.

I agree with what your saying there. The world works in frequencies but changing computers to work by frequency doesn't address the issue of what it means to perceive.

BTW there has been success in translating neuron frequencies to 1's and 0's.
[youtube]yI_8cx4m0Is[/youtube]
Typing with Brain Waves - YouTube

 

[dust1n]

I agree with what your saying there. The world works in frequencies but changing computers to work by frequency doesn't address the issue of what it means to perceive.

I'm not sure what all that entails, exactly.

BTW there has been success in translating neuron frequencies to 1's and 0's.

That doesn't negate what I said; which is that works don't work off 1's and 0's. I'm aware that machines can operate and assist nervous systems. The ability for a computer to be programmed to recognize patterns in the usage of energy in the brain and then respond to those location patterns can be recognized via input that is then recognized by a binary programming system.

 

[idav]

I'm not sure what all that entails, exactly.



That doesn't negate what I said; which is that works don't work off 1's and 0's. I'm aware that machines can operate and assist nervous systems. The ability for a computer to be programmed to recognize patterns in the usage of energy in the brain and then respond to those location patterns can be recognized via input that is then recognized by a binary programming system.

In other words translation of one language to another like reading Braille as something meaningful. Im not sure it matters if it is on off or dot dot dash or whatever so long as it translates into something meaningful.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The cameras dont have an operating system

Most do actually: Mobile operating system

the operations are more reactionary

Everything a computer does is completely reactionary. It is built that way. When it isn't purely reactionary, it means that it's broken (or that "it was the machines, Sarah, defense network computers, hooked into everything...they say it got smart. A new order of intelligence").

However given that chemistry also is essentially reactionary

Lots of things are purely reactionary. What's the point of calling a camera or phone or plant or diode "aware" simply because it reacts? I can refer to one of my bookcases as a system and model it and demonstrate that it reacts when I apply force to it and the new configuration space is so hard to model exactly I'd probably use statistical mechanics rather than attempt a complete model of the system.

There are precious few things on this planet that are not wholly reactionary. Most life forms don't fit into this group. However, a small subset with brains do fit into it.

So that if a hits b then b knows it in the sense that it reacted.

Then pushing over a bookcase makes it aware. It reacts to and is governed by kinetics.

When this reaction is encoded and can be built upon with learning you have a system that is aware of whatever it is designed to be aware of.

Wait a minute. You just said that "b knows" something because it reacted. How can it know without being aware (also, the reaction is encoded; it's just encoded in a new configuration that is now all over my floor)?

Then there is the problem of "learning". The early work on learning was carried out in different ways. We had the behaviorists demonstrating learning by classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov and his infamous dogs, B. F. Skinner, a non-jeopardy Watson, etc.). We also had Donald Hebb & McCulloch–Pitts in the 1940s working on how simple neural systems (not brains) could show the same kind of reactionary conditioning that the behaviorists were using on animals capable of more.

In fact, behaviorism was challenged from within by e.g., by Tolman, Ritchie and Kalish (and about the same time that Claude Shannon and what's-his name Weaver formalized information, creating the field of information theory).

The problem was the idea of memory that carried over from Tolman's cognitive maps, Hebbian learning, and McCulloch–Pitts.

Have you ever gone into a room where or a building and something smelled but after a while you didn't notice it anymore? That's the kind of "learning" and "memory" we're dealing with: getting used to a bad smell, or the dark, or after being in the dark getting used to someone flicking on the light switch.

When looking at an eye the eye is not aware but more so than the camera since the cells in the eye are aware because each cell is an individual system capable of learning and communication.

The eyes are a good starting place. Let's imagine you don't know what pupils, but you are in a room and the lights are on, when suddenly someone shuts them off. There's still a little light coming in from under the door, from the bit of the windows the window shades don't obscure, etc. So after a while you begin to see better in the dark room. Then someone turns the light on, and it hurts your eyes. But again, after a while you adjust and can see. All because of pupil dilation and contraction.

But you have no control whatsoever over this. And without knowing what pupils are, you can't tell me you are aware of the state of your pupils when it was dark or when it was light.

That's the kind of learning we're dealing with.

 

[idav]

Most do actually: Mobile operating system

I know but I was going with your calculator analogy.

Everything a computer does is completely reactionary. It is built that way. When it isn't purely reactionary, it means that it's broken (or that "it was the machines, Sarah, defense network computers, hooked into everything...they say it got smart. A new order of intelligence").

If it isn't purely reactionary it is cause it can learn to do other than originally programmed automatically.

Lots of things are purely reactionary. What's the point of calling a camera or phone or plant or diode "aware" simply because it reacts? I can refer to one of my bookcases as a system and model it and demonstrate that it reacts when I apply force to it and the new configuration space is so hard to model exactly I'd probably use statistical mechanics rather than attempt a complete model of the system.

There are precious few things on this planet that are not wholly reactionary. Most life forms don't fit into this group. However, a small subset with brains do fit into it.

You missed what I was trying to say cause I agree. I just was saying that reaction like that of chemicals is part of a cognitive system, not the means but a very important step. We wouldn't even be able to see or hear if it weren't for simple reactions and cause and effect.

Wait a minute. You just said that "b knows" something because it reacted. How can it know without being aware (also, the reaction is encoded; it's just encoded in a new configuration that is now all over my floor)?

Then there is the problem of "learning". The early work on learning was carried out in different ways. We had the behaviorists demonstrating learning by classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov and his infamous dogs, B. F. Skinner, a non-jeopardy Watson, etc.). We also had Donald Hebb & McCulloch–Pitts in the 1940s working on how simple neural systems (not brains) could show the same kind of reactionary conditioning that the behaviorists were using on animals capable of more.

In fact, behaviorism was challenged from within by e.g., by Tolman, Ritchie and Kalish (and about the same time that Claude Shannon and what's-his name Weaver formalized information, creating the field of information theory).

The problem was the idea of memory that carried over from Tolman's cognitive maps, Hebbian learning, and McCulloch–Pitts.

Have you ever gone into a room where or a building and something smelled but after a while you didn't notice it anymore? That's the kind of "learning" and "memory" we're dealing with: getting used to a bad smell, or the dark, or after being in the dark getting used to someone flicking on the light switch.

I am going back and forth with various definitions of awareness but it boils to this. As you had alluded a system waiting for commands is a low level awareness. This is how I see a single cell or neuron so that one cell is a system in itself. The brain being a collection of neurons can also be seen as a system as a whole. I understand that human cognition is a special configuration likes of which not seen anywhere else.

I know how much you love my comparisons, lol, but I see a computer with the same capacity of awareness as a biogical cell. Before we know it computers will help us fight diseases at the cellular level.

Biological computer created at Stanford - San Jose Mercury News

The eyes are a good starting place. Let's imagine you don't know what pupils, but you are in a room and the lights are on, when suddenly someone shuts them off. There's still a little light coming in from under the door, from the bit of the windows the window shades don't obscure, etc. So after a while you begin to see better in the dark room. Then someone turns the light on, and it hurts your eyes. But again, after a while you adjust and can see. All because of pupil dilation and contraction.

But you have no control whatsoever over this. And without knowing what pupils are, you can't tell me you are aware of the state of your pupils when it was dark or when it was light.

That's the kind of learning we're dealing with.

Of course we aren't consciously aware of bodily mechanisms but something is aware else it might not function at all.

The eye received a light frequency. So however it gets from light to us actually experiencing a color is of interest pertaining to percieving . Cause we can send a camera attached to a system that will translate the light into something it understands. A plant can perceive light too so at what point do we say that the light is not perceived rather just a chemical reaction. Would a plant moving toward sunlight count as awareness or is it simply chemical reactions?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know but I was going with your calculator analogy.

It's the same concept. Calculators, cellphones (mobiles for UK folks), computers, nav systems, etc., are all mechanically carrying out a well-defined procedure made possible by mathematics.

If it isn't purely reactionary it is cause it can learn to do other than originally programmed automatically.

Here's an example of what computers do and students do:

It's a logical derivation from what looks like an intro logic course which has gone from propositional logic to predicate logic. The point is that the students who take such courses did start out with examples of sentences being represented symbolically, but by the time they start doing these derivations, the textbook won't even bother defining what statement the symbols that aren't logical operations are supposed to mean. It doesn't matter. The point is to be able to have some set of input, and be able to apply rules to return output. I've seen hundreds of examples like that in the picture, and before I taught/tutored others I had to do them myself. I'd turn in homework that would have perhaps 20+ steps and none of it corresponded to anything meaningful.


This is what the sciences have been doing and improving for the last 400+ years, and we've gotten so good at turning concepts and ideas into procedures that we built machines to apply the operations to input without understanding anything. What does 4 + 4 = 8 mean? How about ~Sb? The reason that math is such a powerful tool for the sciences is because it takes vague human language and turns it into mathematics.

Computers are computational machines. That's what they do: compute. You feed them input and they are built to respond very precisely. So precisely that if you leave out a single letter or semi-colon in your program usually the program won't work. Some programming languages are more flexible than others, in that some might not differentiate between upper- and lowercase, but that level (the programming part) is not what the machine itself actually "does". The program is written in a language which is either compiled or interpreted by some other program or software, and this takes your code and turns it into something simpler such that finally whatever code you started out with in whatever language you wrote it, the computer implements by a few simple types of logic gates.

Would a plant moving toward sunlight count as awareness or is it simply chemical reactions?

Awareness requires understanding. The reason that it is so hard to model consciousness is because science has developed its central tool to avoid having to deal human language (which is conceptually based). But we can make some pretty good distinctions because we are able to define one type of learning: procedural.

For many applied purposes, programs are written with explicit instructions. In order to play checkers or display a webpage we don't need machine learning and to use it would be much harder and a waste of time. So instead we define the procedures.

Another type of programming defines the procedures that change the ways in which the program takes input and returns output. Much like the plant. All of this is done by pure reaction. It is the type of learning that your eyes do: they respond in ways you can't control and the things you are aware of (like being unable to see if someone turns off of the light, and then being able to see better as your eyes adjust) are related to automated responses you don't even know are happening. You aren't aware of any of the signals and tissue responses that cause your eyes to widen your pupils so that your vision is enhanced in the dark. You are only aware of being able to see more.


Flowers, computers, ant colonies, etc., are all doing the things that your body does that you can't control and usually aren't even aware of. If you aren't aware of what your kidney is doing, why would you call simple processes awareness?

 

[idav]

I call simple processes awareness because of the potential emergence of consciousness in certain configurations. From matter to life to consciousness.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I call simple processes awareness because of the potential emergence of consciousness in certain configurations. From matter to life to consciousness.

I sympathize, as that matter to life to consciousness is really pretty central to the cognitive sciences. And you aren't alone, as there is a formal definition of "consciousness" which is akin to yours (as I said).

The major problem with this approach is that scientific inquiry is (ideally) not supposed to be about making data fit theory. Clearly, humans are capable of something no system we know of is likewise capable of (language). No other system can do what our brains do when it comes to concepts. Some come closer than others. If we want to define consciousness, then the way to do it is to try to understand how we are capable of doing what it is we do: consciously process concepts.

When you define consciousness or awareness such that you can use your definition to explain how computers and flowers and so forth are "aware", what you've done is ensured that as long as we use this theory, we will never actually understand how dogs, pigs, humans, gorillas, etc., can understand things the way that computers, flowers, ant colonies, etc., cannot. As long as we work within that framework, we won't progress.

 

[absols]

yes computers are aware but not in a significant way for evaluating it free
while only what is free is absolutely present and only absolute exist

it shows how what is objective is not real while it is true

forms and valuable speculations dont exist

what exist is individual realisations, existence is true in the sense that individuals active moves are able to realize alone absolute present freedom, able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong n identify true existence to realize it personnally so proving it then of its own fact result

that is why animals for instance seem to b an objective value that computers are not

they inspire that sense of realisations which is essential for existence to b true

this is the weakness of truth, of being totally objective so there is nothing left positively present free, truth freedom seem to b a result of objective means but not a free present mean

while objective is all so all means is nonsense, and surely why it ends in contradictions and worse crimes which make the happiness of evil life and powers

do right objective exist?? mayb it is true that at the end all would resolve its fact alone right in truth since existence is true

but computers are not objective they are programmed on fake objectivity according to some wills and evil ones so not for true reality needs

 

[idav]

When you define consciousness or awareness such that you can use your definition to explain how computers and flowers and so forth are "aware", what you've done is ensured that as long as we use this theory, we will never actually understand how dogs, pigs, humans, gorillas, etc., can understand things the way that computers, flowers, ant colonies, etc., cannot. As long as we work within that framework, we won't progress.

I wouldn't define consciousness that way but with defining awareness there is a bit of wiggle room. That is because things like single celled organisms exhibit attributes of being aware of its environment and it is the emergence of these cells, which are also present in plants and insects, that gives rise to cognition. Our self awareness must be harnessing this low level awareness somehow. So that each cell individually has a base awareness. In order for us to function the brain must be aware of a lot more than what we are consciously aware of so there are other things to be aware of besides what we know about. No cell or neuron by itself is any more or less aware than another so no combination of it makes us "more" aware. With emergence it is the complexity that gives rise to self awareness, not that any human neuron is more aware than neurons of other animals.

 

[absols]

u seem to b honest so u should b aware of smthg else

when u relativise too much the truth according to ur perceptions and proofs u r getting away from

truth is only of absolutes that is why its language is very simple obvious

like let me tell u how i see awarness and conscious in truth

when truth is objective first, then any is certainly related to so relatively true so present then it must b aware

also when truth exist, then any that realise objective truth existence, is also free

when truth is always in free dimensions existing above and superior to all conceptions of facts

so the fact that truth is true since existing, then any is really present even by doing none

and the fact that truth is first then always superior or the absolute refernce of objective presence in free dimensions, then any is present but cant b but that individual present since not yet recognized by truth freedom

only when conscious realize objective free existence it becomes relatively existing according to its reality freedom with
which then makes it aware of itself as objective conscious reality so free present relatively since itself is objective
which is closer to true existence when true existence is only about present freedom of moves and decisions

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No cell or neuron by itself is any more or less aware than another so no combination of it makes us "more" aware. With emergence it is the complexity that gives rise to self awareness, not that any human neuron is more aware than neurons of other animals.

I've moved this up as it is so vital.
Interestingly enough, within the human brain itself, some neurons are vastly "superior" than others. Just like certain brain regions have more to do with awareness and consciousness, so do certain types of neurons. Cortical neurons such as Purkinje neurons make all the difference in the world. This is because pyramidal neurons in general but those in the cortical regions especially are unbelievably complex. Cognitive abilities in animal species is not just a matter of brain size or number of neurons. Rather it has a lot to do with specific areas of the brain (cortical regions in particular) and how much the neurons in such regions are able to received input from sensorimotor regions.

When a single neuron can receive input from a few hundred thousand other neurons, and when you have a lot of these in areas devoted to integrating information from sensorimotor regions as well as the interactions between the cortical neurons themselves, it means that there is absolutely a difference in the types of neurons in a brain. The shape of a dendrite, the way that a dendritic tree branches, and a large number of other factors make some neurons capable of contributing much more to higher cognitive functions that others. No other animal known has anywhere near the complexity of the regions associated with such functions. None are capable of our ability integrating information from different regions because none have the types of specific neurons that are incredibly important for this process the way that humans do.

Recall that the emergent "hive mind" of the ants required that there be a certain number of ants and certain types of ants. There is a BIG difference between the emergent "hive mind" and the human mind (or a dog's "mind"). This is because even though there are a few different types of ants in a colony, each ant can "connect" only to ants that are in close proximity to it (in time and/or space). So for ant colonies, the right number is hugely important, because most of them are basically the same.

That's not true of neurons. A single neuron can be connected in millions of ways such that a small region of the brain is more complex, more connected, and processing information far greater and faster than an entire colony of ants.

Different cell structures of neurons are vitally important.

I wouldn't define consciousness that way but with defining awareness there is a bit of wiggle room.

There's actually less.
You might find these reviews of change blindness and attention worth reading. Change Detection is the longer one, but it is still less than 30 pages and it is a good review of awareness studies. Change blindness: Past, present, and future is shorter but misses a lot of stuff may even be more difficult to read.


We have run experiments on awareness from rats to humans for ~70 years. We have no such history of research on consciousness that even begins to compare.

That is because things like single celled organisms exhibit attributes of being aware of its environment and it is the emergence of these cells, which are also present in plants and insects, that gives rise to cognition.

You are equating reactions with awareness. Being unaware usually means not reacting. If you're in the middle of a conversation and don't hear the phone ringing, you are conscious and you are aware of e.g., the person you are talking to, but you are not aware of the phone ringing. So you don't react.


When e.g., a plant or cell can only react, then we know that they aren't aware. We have defined awareness in terms of attention, cognition, short-term memory, and all kinds of things we can test using experiments (including neuroimaging studies). We have good definitions that help us to understand everything from evolutionary processes to learning and memory (and how these relate to perceptual faculties).

Our self awareness must be harnessing this low level awareness somehow

Why? Plants, like all living things, require energy (fuel to keep them going). Should we assume that all living things use photosynthesis? No. More importantly, we have that low-level awareness: autonomic nervous system. If you accidently put your hand on a hot surface, or eat food that is way to sour, or any number of ways people automatically and unconsciously react all the time, you can compare this with the reaction that plants and cells have: a purely unaware reaction that the system has no control over at all.

We know the kinds of things that humans will react to in much the same way plants and bugs and so forth do. We can knock out genes in mice and make them incapable of being aware of certain things. There are disorders humans have that make them unable to react to pain (which is extremely dangerous) or which cause sounds to be interpreted as colors. We have spent decades studying the perceptual system and the conditions in which a person will be aware of X but not Y.

In order for us to function the brain must be aware of a lot more than what we are consciously aware of so there are other things to be aware of besides what we know about.

Think about all the things you or people you know do that they aren't aware of. Maybe the cat just broke a vase and you put down your class without being aware that you did this, and so you can't remember where you put it. Maybe in a rush to get to work, you grabbed the wrong set of keys. The things that we do all the time without being aware are all the ways in which we react unconsciously. Awareness requires the ability to perceive (through sight, sound, both, etc.) and to direct attention and cognitive resources to something (a lecture, a book you're reading, a forum post that is way too wordy, etc.), and also the ability to do things without being aware.

Reaction is being unaware.

 

[idav]

I've moved this up as it is so vital.
Interestingly enough, within the human brain itself, some neurons are vastly "superior" than others. Just like certain brain regions have more to do with awareness and consciousness, so do certain types of neurons. Cortical neurons such as Purkinje neurons make all the difference in the world. This is because pyramidal neurons in general but those in the cortical regions especially are unbelievably complex. Cognitive abilities in animal species is not just a matter of brain size or number of neurons. Rather it has a lot to do with specific areas of the brain (cortical regions in particular) and how much the neurons in such regions are able to received input from sensorimotor regions.

When a single neuron can receive input from a few hundred thousand other neurons, and when you have a lot of these in areas devoted to integrating information from sensorimotor regions as well as the interactions between the cortical neurons themselves, it means that there is absolutely a difference in the types of neurons in a brain. The shape of a dendrite, the way that a dendritic tree branches, and a large number of other factors make some neurons capable of contributing much more to higher cognitive functions that others. No other animal known has anywhere near the complexity of the regions associated with such functions. None are capable of our ability integrating information from different regions because none have the types of specific neurons that are incredibly important for this process the way that humans do.

Recall that the emergent "hive mind" of the ants required that there be a certain number of ants and certain types of ants. There is a BIG difference between the emergent "hive mind" and the human mind (or a dog's "mind"). This is because even though there are a few different types of ants in a colony, each ant can "connect" only to ants that are in close proximity to it (in time and/or space). So for ant colonies, the right number is hugely important, because most of them are basically the same.

That's not true of neurons. A single neuron can be connected in millions of ways such that a small region of the brain is more complex, more connected, and processing information far greater and faster than an entire colony of ants.

Different cell structures of neurons are vitally important.

I agree completely however a neuron being superior doesn't mean being more aware than other neurons. Does being able to learn and do more mean your more aware, more conscious? Neurons are not an army of one as you pointed out.

You seem to be doing something similar to me in that the definition of awareness changes depending on context.

Here is what I mean.

Your saying a human is more aware than a chimp, which I can agree with in the sense of cognition. However a human and chimp have the same awareness in the sense that they both are conscious of there environment, in that context there is not such thing as being more aware. Similar to my comparison of animal cells to that of plants or the comparison of human neurons vs chimp neurons.

I can understand humans have quite a few types of neurons that are vastly superior but when a chimp or human drink water they are both aware of the water to the same degree, same level of consciousness as in awake and able to see objects. Does having superior neurons mean we are more aware of water than other animals?

 

[absols]

i dont think that animals awareness and humans are on the same level

from how i see, any physical individuality is certainly aware relatively it is certainly present but regarding the fact of true existence and not of its own fact
while since existence is true then existence as a whole reality physically is the present fact since in absolute terms being, and when it cant b two present unless it is realized clearly then the superior objective present prevail so animals just follow they are not aware every second

while humans realize themselves awareness by standin free careless to their surroundings and inventing their lives if they want to
self realisation is the condition of individual awareness where then the individual is only the abstraction he created or keep meaning about himself which could b totally disconnected from reality and the world proved that constant liars are the most successful in life

so awareness is about self realisation
while conscious is about objective realisation so else existence recognition, this is where conscious is relatively close to rights realms, objective and self freedom rights

which also differenciate humans from animals that cant recognize but the physical scenes

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Does being able to learn and do more mean your more aware, more conscious?

Consciousness is a particular type of awareness: self-awareness. And like consciousness, as soon as we start talking about self-awareness we run into the usual problems.

Your saying a human is more aware than a chimp, which I can agree with in the sense of cognition.

I'm not really saying that at all, although the way I talked about the areas of the brain related to awareness wasn't very clear. This:

However a human and chimp have the same awareness in the sense that they both are conscious of there environment, in that context there is not such thing as being more aware

is a lot more like what I'm saying.



Imagine that we both had the chance to talk to Gauss, Gödel, Einstein, Hilbert, Ramanujan, and any other of the most brilliant people who ever lived. Now I don't know about you, but I'm not the kind of person who can take 2 math textbooks and a pretty poor primary education and end up being invited to Cambridge because I was able to use these bare resources to develop uncharted realms within mathematics. Ramanujan could do that, not me. But they weren't more aware, just aware of different things and more thing in more ways.


My dog recognizes some people that I see regularly and doesn't recognize strangers. She is aware of both but reacts differently. But she reacts to strangers vs. those she recognizes because she is aware of the distinction.

That's what awareness is. Not simply reacting. We are unaware of lots of our reactions. But being able to pay attention, to differentiate strangers who must be barked at vs. those whom my dog has decided are not a threat.

Imagine if we took Aristotle to a store like Best Buy. Would he see DVDs, computers, notebooks, appliances, etc.? No. He might think a dvd was a kind of painting. Who knows. But even though both of us are "seeing" the same mishmash of colors and shapes, I see them quite differently because even if I see a DVD I've never seen before, or a new xbox or playstation I've never seen, I easily recognize these things if I pay attention.

It's the ability to pay attention to certain things and to associate certain things with concepts and to discriminate what a "treat" is vs. what "food" is and similar processes that make-up awareness,

Similar to my comparison of animal cells to that of plants or the comparison of human neurons vs chimp neurons.

Neurons aren't aware of anything. Neurons can't read posts on this thread, can't recognize a word like "pay" as something totally different when it's followed by "attention". That's what minds do. And it isn't a property of any set of neurons, but a property that emerges from particular interactions. Only that property allows me to understand that "pay attention" can't be understood in terms of "pay" and "attention".

Does having superior neurons mean we are more aware of water than other animals?

Yes. Or rather, having superior abilities to integrate information thanks to certain regions that are critical and within these regions how many neurons have a very large number of connections enormous numbers of other neurons. For one thing, a waterfall or water rapids might be associated with something that is very different from water for an animal (one being "danger do not cross" and the other "drink when thirsty"), or water may be associated with a route. A wolf might know the place along a river that is narrow enough to cross, but is not going to relate that to the concept of drinking. We, on the other hand, can understand H2O, waterfalls, streams, rivers, oceans, tap water, bottled water, etc., all in terms of a general concept of water. We can abstract from specifics far more than anything on the planet (thanks largely to language).

 

[apophenia]

while humans realize themselves awareness by standin free careless to their surroundings and inventing their lives if they want to

True.
Welcome to RF absols. If my linguistic parser is reliable, you were 'absolute' on myspace R&P ?

 

[absols]

thanks apophenia glad to find u here too