3

Generally, we think of humans as having a (relatively) advanced level of consciousness, but we don't think of simple molecules as having any sort of mental capacity at all. So where in between does the phenomenon of consciousness arise?

Update: I have chosen G.Tononi's definition: the quantity of consciousness corresponds to the amount of integrated information generated by a complex of elements

  • 2
    Define consciousness using testable terms. (This is a bit hard.) – Krysta Feb 12 '15 at 13:03
  • 2
    According to me, degree of consciousness == degree of understanding. I think consciousness is a subset of unsupervised learning where the goal is to find hidden structure in unlabeled data.

    I think scientists should recognize that animals evolved higher level reasoning for a reason, that is to understand their environments. That's what we call 'consciousness'. And that's testable empirically.

     –  Feb 12 '15 at 13:57
  • Understanding what, exactly? What subset of unsupervised learning from unlabeled data (which all life forms perform)? – Krysta Feb 12 '15 at 14:08
  • Based on our current understanding of things, this is in principle impossible to answer. Consciousness cannot be inferred, only experienced. Other beings' consciousness or lack thereof is inaccessible to us. However... No never mind. Suffice it to say that it would take some tremendous leap in technology to even get close to answering this question. –  Feb 14 '15 at 00:12
  • 5
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a philosophical question. – Christian Hummeluhr Mar 25 '15 at 09:55
  • The limitations of today's scientific instruments do not negate the validity of this question unless you consider that it's impossible to create a falsifiable definition of consciousness. –  Mar 27 '15 at 22:44
  • @ChristianHummeluhr Can you explain to me why you consider this question to be outside the scope of Cognitive Science? If consciousness is an emergent property then there must be a measurable 'tipping point'. If it isn't an emergent property then everything is consciousness, including stones. –  Mar 31 '15 at 00:58
  • Because it's a question of philosophy, not a question of cognitive science. Or, if you prefer, the simplest entity that we have reached scientific consensus having consciousness on are humans. But again, that's basically just scientists going "well of course HUMANS have consciousness." It's not really science. – Christian Hummeluhr Mar 31 '15 at 07:25
  • That's why I posted this question. Science doesn't progress due to consensus. It makes progress based on definitions that can be measured in a precise manner. Do you consider that consciousness is outside the scope of cognitive science? There's integrated information theory...which you may or may not subscribe to. –  Apr 01 '15 at 11:54
  • @ChristianHummeluhr There's no precise definition of consciousness yet it's meaning is assumed in several questions such as this one: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/3674/can-we-be-conscious-of-our-dreams?rq=1~

    Double standards?

     –  Apr 01 '15 at 12:01
  • If you do possess a precise and measurable definition of consciousness, I would suggest editing the question, and then I or someone else may initiate a reopen vote. It would be quite an answer unto itself. As written, it seems distinctly philosophical. – Christian Hummeluhr Apr 01 '15 at 13:01
  • @ChristianHummeluhr I'll have the question edited by the end of this week. –  Apr 01 '15 at 14:01
  • @ChristianHummeluhr I have edited my question and have chosen to use G. Tononi's definition. If you should insist on another definition I'd like to hear it. –  Apr 05 '15 at 23:47
  • 1
    @AidanRocke Thank you for the edit. However, the definition still does not allow a cognitive answer to your question. All organisms, even single celled ones, satisfy the given definition in some capacity or other. What you need is a measurable definition, which means you'd need to commit to a specific measure of complexity. I know it's not a good feeling to have a question closed, but you'd really have more luck on philosophy – Christian Hummeluhr Apr 07 '15 at 05:45
  • You might want to read up on Integrated Information Theory (IIT). – forest Apr 24 '19 at 03:48

1 Answers1

-4

As strange as it may seem the answer to the question is that when two braincells or neurons work together a small conciousness is created. We have billions of neurons so that conciousness would be rather small. Of course, this depends on the definition of counciousness and neurons.

wesserbisser
  • 27
  • 1
  • 2
    This is just a quasi-philosophical argument with no basis in reality. – Chuck Sherrington Feb 15 '15 at 04:27
  • Then please provide your answer to the question, because it must have an answer. Do you think 100000 neurons are required or more? Of course I have chosen the most generous definition of counciousness possible. – wesserbisser Feb 17 '15 at 15:43
  • Two neurons generally can't "work together" on their own. The smallest unit of complex processing is believed to be the cortical minicolumn, which consists of a few hundred neurons. Even then, I don't think you could say that a cortical minicolumn exhibits consciousness. – forest Apr 24 '19 at 03:47