Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:30 pm There was recently an interesting discussion of this idea at a meeting of an organization with which I am affiliated.

The question is a simple one: Is intelligence (or, if you prefer, high intelligence) possible without consciousness?

As you stated, it's the problem of actually defining what consciousness is that presents the problem. I have been reading and thinking about this very thing for some time now; and it seems (despite the fact that consciousness is one of the few things science cannot fully define or explain) that what we generally think of as consciousness (i.e., aware of one's self, of one's past and future, of having aspirations and being an entity separate from others, and yet linked to others in familial, societal, and ethical bonds) actually may reside outside the body, and outside the brain itself. The brain, some scientists are coming to believe, is nothing more than a sophisticated receiver, much like a radio or TV set. Sometimes the brain gets jolted, or aged, or diseased, and ceases to be a good receiver....and yet the consciousness and intelligence still resides *SOMEWHERE* intact and whole. There are several things that point to the consciousness existing independent of the body.... out of body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), lucid dreams, and so on suggest strongly that we can leave the body at will or sometimes due to an accident, a drug overdose, or sometimes on a surgery table, we humans are able to "get up and walk around" so to speak, or move through walls and know and see things that there is no rational explanation for. And if that is true -- that our consciousness is independent of the body, that our "MIND" is really not associated with the brain...then all sorts of things are possible. The most significant of which would be the possibility that we survive what people call "death" and our consciousness simply moves on to inhabit another, higher realm of vibration. There's a fascinating book, out of print now I think, but available free online, called On The Edge of the Etheric by Arthur Findlay, published in 1935 or so. In it he describes his encounters with a well-known medium of the time and his understanding of the etheric body that we all have and how it is really our consciousness, intelligence, and personality, simply inhabiting a physical body, and that at the time of death the etheric body (some might call it the "soul") detaches from the body for the final time and ascends to a higher level of vibration. He says it is this body that travels and leaves the physical body from time to time, as in dreams or out of body experiences...and recall that this was in 1935!

So in light of all that, I suspect [q

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:09 pm uote="fhunter" time=1217743380]

that at some level we are all ope
[/quote]
rating at a similar level of intelligence and consciousness, but in our physical forms, we all have handicaps, our brains (our "receivers") might not be as highly tuned as others, so down here we all appear to be different, some highly intelligent, some not so much...but at a higher level, at the etheric level, the place we all go to when we leave this physical plane, I think it may be the case that we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

IMHO, of course.

Interesting question.

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:08 pm

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 pm Higher life forms can have intelligence without being consiousness like that its a dog. A dog is intelligence but he does not see himself as a dog, if you put him in front of a mirror, he will most likely just look away, he will not realize that he is looking at himself. The dog is smart, he will sit up for

a treat, but he has no idea that he is a dog.

River

Of course a dog knows that he's a dog. And he knows another dog when he sees one. He confirms this to his satisfaction by smelling its backside.

His reaction to his reflection in a mirror? For a dog what he looks like is irrelevant but he is concerned with what he smells like. My dog likes to roll in shit whenever he can and is quite peeved at the subsequent bath to get rid of the stink.

Generally speaking, for most dogs, if you can't eat it, fight it or fuck it, it is devoid of interest for them.

All creatures that have to get food have some form of consciousness and an instinct for self preservation which cannot exist without consciousness. They can think too. Questions like 'where do I get my next meal?' or observations like 'that's a nice piece of ass' are important to them. Else they would have died out.

The problem with consciousness: we all know that it exists but we do not know how it works. Unt

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:08 pm il we do the God theory is as good as an

y other.

Can you

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 pm have intelligence without consciousness?

No. All that unconscious 'intelligence' can do is give a simulation of intelligence. It has no understanding of the meaning of what it parrots.

Kortpeel

amahl_shukup (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:26 pm As you stated, it's the problem of actually defining what consciousness is that presents the problem. I have been reading and thinking about this very thing for some time now; and it seems (despite the fact that consciousness is one of the few things science cannot fully define or explain) that what we generally think of as consciousness (i.e., aware of one's self, of one's past and future, of having aspirations and being an entity separate from others, and yet linked to others in familial, societal, and ethical bonds) actually may reside outside the body, and outside the brain itself. The brain, some scientists are coming to believe, is nothing more than a sophisticated receiver, much like a radio or TV set. Sometimes the brain gets jolted, or aged, or diseased, and ceases to be a good receiver....and yet the consciousness and intelligence still resides *SOMEWHERE* intact and whole. There are several things that point to the consciousness existing independent of the body.... out of body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), lucid dreams, and so on suggest strongly that we can leave the body at will or sometimes due to an accident, a drug overdose, or sometimes on a surgery table, we humans are able to "get up and walk around" so to speak, or move through walls and know and see things that there is no rational explanation for. And if that is true -- that our consciousness is independent of the body, that our "MIND" is really not associated with the brain...then all sorts of things are possible. The most significant of which would be the possibility that we survive what people call "death" and our consciousness simply moves on to inhabit another, higher realm of vibration. There's a fascinating book, out of print now I think, but available free online, called On The Edge of the Etheric by Arthur Findlay, published in 1935 or so. In it he describes his encounters with a well-known medium of the time and his understanding of the etheric body that we all have and how it is really our consciousness, intelligence, and personality, simply inhabiting a physical body, and that at the time of death the etheric body (some might call it the "soul") detaches from the body for the final time and ascends to a higher level of vibration. He says it is this body that travels and leaves the physical body from time to time, as in dreams or out of body experiences...and recall that this was in 1935!

So in light of all that, I suspect that at some level we are all operating at a similar level [

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:09 pm quote="fhunter" time=1217743380]

of intelligence and consciousnes

s, but in our physical forms, we all have handicaps, our brains (our "receivers") might not be as highly tuned as others, so down here we all appear to be different, some highly intelligent, some not so much...but at a higher level, at the etheric level, the place we all go to when we leave this physical plan
[/quote]
e, I think it may be the case that we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

IMHO, of course.Donald Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. I am not certain what he means. However, I think that it has to do with the sense that we make decisions with awareness. The quesion is whether we make decisions before we are aware that we made them.

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:03 am Of course intelligence can exist without consciousness, and vice versa. I'm surprised any of you would even need to think about this. As proof, I offer CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace...

While I may be (grudgingly) willing to accept that humans are conscious/sentient, I'm not as willing to accept that more than a handful are actually intelligent.

Hummm... I tend to agree but there was this fat white guy playing guitar JUST like Jimi Hendrix on Youtube....

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:09 pm I often hear people say animals are not intelligent, nor are they self possessed or self aware. In short they do not have a soul. .

An observation obviously made by somebody who has never seen a dog be embarassed by something they did. But that would perhaps require liviing with a dog and, goodness gracious, we cannot do that and call the observations valid.

Blaise (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:23 pm Still, what is consciousness? It seems to be more than awareness. It seems to suppose some notion of self and recognition of that self, but what is that and what does it mean. Computers and brains are not the same; at least our brains do not work the way computers work.

Yes, it is difficult describe what is the essence of a human being, what gives intelligence to a human being.

When a child is born into this world, he or she is virtually empty of knowledge and intelligence. Intelligence is gained over time via learning process and developing of conciousness.

Insticts to suck milk and cry when something is wrong we can consider as a preprogrammed part of initial program that must be there in order to baby to survive. This is not an intelligence.

We have certain things 'preprogrammed' already when we are born.

Then there is an emotional layer of our minds. Emotions force us to behave certain way. about 95% of all decisions we make are driven by emotions not by calm and calculating mind. It is amazing how little we can make choices in our lives.

emotions drive us to do something. To do some scientific research or to work hard or not to work at all. Scientists calm mind is driven by strong emotion or desire to discover something he really likes to work with. Not speaking about painters and sculptors and writers and actors.

Emotions help us to react very fast in critical situations. If your finger is burning you don't think that you need to take your finger out of fire in order to stop the occuring damage. You feel pain and you react very fast. The stronger is emotion, the more resources are allocated by your body to that emotion.

Are emotions part of conciousness?

I think they are. Your counciosness is feeling the sorrounding environment.

with computer you can only emulate emotions. computer can not feel surrounding.

take a newborn child again. she or he can see, hear, smell, taste and feel. Everything seem to be meaningless to a child. very soon he or she will be able to understand what certain noises mean, somehow. then she or he starts to recognise words no matter what is the language.

What is driving this learning process? Is it an emotion or is it something 'preprogrmmed'?

fhunter wrote: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:37 pm So let's summ this up to the point that humans can set their own goals. And computers are still unable to do this.

And as of orders and rationality of computers - they can be programmed to look irrational.

Here comes second question - if something looks sentinent - is it really sentinent. (Think about Elisa program, or it's more modern variants).

I am not sure how much humans can truly set their goals. There is a lot to do with their emotions. Choosing goals is not really a free choice. What you choose to do in your life depends on what you like to do if you do not have limiting operating frames. Liking is a pure emotion.

And of course, computers can emulate what ever we want them to emulate. Even irrational behaviour. This is the essence of computers - the do what we want them to do.

Csn you tell more abut Elisa program please?

erikboy (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:10 am I am not sure how much humans can truly set their goals. There is a lot to do with their emotions. Choosing goals is not really a free choice. What you choose to do in your life depends on what you like to do if you do not have limiting operating frames. Liking is a pure emotion.

And of course, computers can emulate what ever we want them to emulate. Even irrational behaviour. This is the essence of computers - the do what we want them to do.

Csn you tell more abut Elisa program please?

The Eliza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA) program was a rather simple program that simulated a therapist.

erikboy (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:10 am I am not sure how much humans can truly set their goals. There is a lot to do with their emotions. Choosing goals is not really a free choice. What you choose to do in your life depends on what you like to do if you do not have limiting operating frames. Liking is a pure emotion.

QUOTE]

I am going to argue with you here. It is only, you understand, because life is sooo boring if everybody agrees.

I am speaking for myself, but I think I have seen the same in a lot of other people. I built my own walls when I was younger. Those walls in part determined the profession I chose. I will use another person as an example. I was in Toastmasters with an auto mechanic. He is an intelligent person but shy around people. So what job did he pick. If you think a minute, a good mechanic is a very smart person. In his case, he also was shy around people. Being a mechanic fit perfectly. There was the intellectual challenge of figuring out the problem without having to deal with people. As he got older he, like me, realized that he was limiting himself by the wall he had built around himself and he, like me, chose to join Toastmasters to tear down that wall. I would call that free will because it can work and open up whole new experiences if you make the decision for yourself.

You, I think, kind of touched on points like that and I agree on those. I am only arguing the big picture.

I never gave much thought about intellegence and consciousness but I agree 100% about Bush,he barely makes the grade