A hypothesis about consciousness

[emjay]

Fair enough; I recognise that hearing a foreign language doesn't entirely lack meaning... there is still knowledge that it is speech and that it is a language... so it fits within the understanding enough at that level... ie familiar enough to be comfortable with the environment... even if it itself is not understood. The only way, hypothetically, to truly separate qualia from its meaning is with certain forms of deep meditation... allegedly; to see colours but not distinguish separate objects or meaning or to hear sounds as just sounds without any meaning whatsoever.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know how when you're trying to learn something but you can't understand it, but then someone uses an illustration and it suddenly makes sense? I think that basically sums up why different cultures threw in arbitrary details, like red. Humans started using more and more symbols to represent the ideas that were becoming more and more cognizant. But while some could understand without the symbols, the majority needed the symbols to make sense, because they have brains that are conditioned to understand the tangible.

I think that we're all the "some" in your rebuttal, personally.  

And I would just say to your last point about qualitative vs qualitative. Humans have learned from thousands and thousands of years of discovery, that there is always more to discover. Humans have also learned that discovery, usually, is a benefit. I just don't think the quantitative or qualitative, the advantage is efficiency.

I think that you're misunderstanding me.  I was suggesting that the difference between "animal" consciousness and human consciousness (and perhaps even machine consciousness) is quantitative, no qualitative.  That there is no uniquely human concious -quality-, rather, a preponderence of conscious quantity in human beings that yields a greater range of practical application.  

It is a beautiful evolutionary advantage, whereas other animals keep adapting to their strengths, they end up going extinct when the ever changing ecosystem, changes too fast for them to adapt. Humans on the other hand, developed the ability to adapt without having to wait for thousands or millions of years to pass. Of course, that begs the question about their advancements bringing their own demise, but that is a completely new can of worms

We, also, keep adapting to our strengths.  Differences that are not different are not differences.

[Won2blv]

Fair enough; I recognise that hearing a foreign language doesn't entirely lack meaning... there is still knowledge that it is speech and that it is a language... so it fits within the understanding enough at that level... ie familiar enough to be comfortable with the environment... even if it itself is not understood. The only way, hypothetically, to truly separate qualia from its meaning is with certain forms of deep meditation... allegedly; to see colours but not distinguish separate objects or meaning or to hear sounds as just sounds without any meaning whatsoever.

They way I look at the qualia is this, we have some newer evolutionary advances and we have some that have been there since the beginning. The ones that have been there from the beginning, have been so densely packed into our mind. They're like black holes that have become so efficient at sucking in data and spitting it back out, that you don't even realize that an extremely process just happened in an instant.

---

You know how when you're trying to learn something but you can't understand it, but then someone uses an illustration and it suddenly makes sense? I think that basically sums up why different cultures threw in arbitrary details, like red. Humans started using more and more symbols to represent the ideas that were becoming more and more cognizant. But while some could understand without the symbols, the majority needed the symbols to make sense, because they have brains that are conditioned to understand the tangible.

I think that we're all the "some" in your rebuttal, personally.  

And I would just say to your last point about qualitative vs qualitative. Humans have learned from thousands and thousands of years of discovery, that there is always more to discover. Humans have also learned that discovery, usually, is a benefit. I just don't think the quantitative or qualitative, the advantage is efficiency.

I think that you're misunderstanding me.  I was suggesting that the difference between "animal" consciousness and human consciousness (and perhaps even machine consciousness) is quantitative, no qualitative.  That there is no uniquely human concious -quality-, rather, a preponderence of conscious quantity in human beings that yields a greater range of practical application.  

It is a beautiful evolutionary advantage, whereas other animals keep adapting to their strengths, they end up going extinct when the ever changing ecosystem, changes too fast for them to adapt. Humans on the other hand, developed the ability to adapt without having to wait for thousands or millions of years to pass. Of course, that begs the question about their advancements bringing their own demise, but that is a completely new can of worms

We, also, keep adapting to our strengths.  Differences that are not different are not differences.

I think there is something about the way I write that makes me sound like a douchebag. I don't think I'm a douchebag but basically what I'm saying, is that I'm sorry if I talked down to you. I have a high school education and was a Jehovah Witness for 28 years, I know my place.

I posted another thread on the hard problem of consciousness. I'd love your feedback