Is there such a thing as pure consciousness, free from biological constraints?
If there is such a thing are we closer to it than other animals? How far down does the ladder of consciousness go? Could say, a cow in a pensive moment experience ego death like a human can through meditation/psychedelics?
>>1334750
>free from biological constraints?
Well, there's machine consciousness, which doesn't exist yet but almost certainly will quite soon. But consciousness is a process not a thing, you'll always need a medium for consciousness to happen in, for us it's a brain but in theory it could be just about anything sufficiently complex.
>Could say, a cow in a pensive moment experience ego death like a human can through meditation/psychedelics?
As far as we know cows don't have a sense of self, so no. Chimps do, and have been observed to seek out and abuse alcohol, which has an ego-crushing effect in humans.
>>1334750
>Is there such a thing as pure consciousness, free from biological constraints?
Not that we know of. It can be theorized, as >>1334761
does, but we really don't know yet. Our understanding of how our biological medium gives rise to our relation's relating itself to itself in the relation is very limited at this point in time.
I for one don't see how you can go from an algorithm, or a grab-bag of them, to consciousness.
>>1334761
>which doesn't exist yet but almost certainly will quite soon
Well, if you call 100 years minimum as soon, sure.
>>1334750
>Is there such a thing as pure consciousness, free from biological constraints?
Well, as far as philosophy has come, the two major ideas are epiphenomenalism and panpsychism.
Epiphenomenalism says that consciousness is simply information processing in our brain, and that this gives rise to the phenomenological subjective sense of being "someone" or a person.
Panpsychism says that, if matter can cause immaterial things(i.e brains causing consciousness), then there is nothing stopping every single object in the universe from having consciousness, which presumably it would.
Take your pick OP.
>>1334750
Consciousness is literally a small bundle of cells that in the on state define consciousness, and in the off state define unconsciousness.
You'd be surprised how many boolean operators are found in nature. Many insects tell if they are hungry or not by the function of a single cell. And when you get down to a cellular level, you are no longer speaking of consciousness. Insects are closer to pure machine logic.
>Is there such a thing as pure consciousness, free from biological constraints?
I don't see how there could be.
>>1334830
That sort of is soon.
>>1334830
Even in terms of human society, not even speaking on geological or cosmic timescales, that's soon.
Have perspective beyond yourself.
>>1334911
Arthropods in general, I'd say. It's neat to watch them operate.
People ask why I have a tarantula for a pet, and I tell them it's more like having a fuzzy piece of clockwork that needs water and occasionally a cricket.
>>1334761
>Well, there's machine consciousness, which doesn't exist yet but almost certainly will quite soon.
If artificial consciousness is theoretically possible, and ego death is a genuine experience which biological consciousness can engage in, would a machine be able to experience it as well? Or is it already in a state of post-death by virtue of never possessing a distinct sense of self, a bodily image or representation of itself?
>>1335552
Why wouldn't a machine intelligence have a body image? Presumably it would have sensory devices of some kind, able to provide the kind of feedback needed to form a sense of the self as separate from the world.
>would a machine be able to experience it as well?
Presumably, if it's consciousness were modelled on how ours works (and we have no other model to work from).
>>1334750
If you mean is human consciousness free from biological constraints, no.
We have not found another function or phenomenon in not just humans or animals, but literally every single other organism that has existed to date, that has something that operates outside of chemistry and physics.
It's logical to assume that the human brain, objectively made of biological tissue and also found to operate solely on a biochemical level thus, also wholly operates on the same principals and mechanisms as every other organ and part found on and in every other organism ever.
Also please forgive my English if it sucks.
