Preprint THE PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY OF INTELLECT EVOLUTION

Related articles:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-brain-consciousness-optimal-degree-connectedness.html

https://physicsworld.com/a/consciousness-is-tied-to-entropy-say-researchers/

Article Measuring Consciousness

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaat7603

Preprint Consciousness and integrated energy differences in the brain

Article Spectral Signatures of Reorganised Brain Networks in Disorde...

Article Large-scale signatures of unconsciousness are consistent wit...

https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(15)00774-6

https://smhs.gwu.edu/news/gw-researcher-discovers-mechanisms-link-brain-alertness-and-increased-heart-rate

Regards,

Joachim

Dear Raveendra Nath Yasarapu

Just because "consciousness" is a word (one word) does not mean it can be seen, OR will be seen, through empirical discoveries AS one thing. (Your problem is a frequent problem of philosophy: words as things; AND: "I can define things as ..." . Both ideas (notions) are the antithesis of ANY well-founded science.) Let me say more that might help.

Let me address your question, "How doe we define Consciousness?" . My answer is simple: WE DON'T. Pertinent empirical discoveries around the question, THOSE observations (quite possibly, at times, INCLUDING EXPERIMENT -- but don't bias yourself inappropriately toward experiment) THEMSELVES, delimit and largely define things (and certainly "consciousness" is a big example here). In good cogent science that progresses (or is able to progress), this way of empirical discovery is how to define all science concepts. "Western" philosophy and "Western" 'man' (persons) will continue to be blind to the possibilities of many possible and likely fruitful observations (and all those good observations stemming clearly and ultimately from some KEY phenomena, which are OVERT and DIRECTLY observable -- only such concepts are legitimate in ANY SCIENCE).

Much of philosophy is the MOST SERIOUS DISEASE (sickness) we have, as far as science progress is concerned, especially the social sciences. This sort of philosophy, frankly, must be STOMPED OUT. These ways of thinking literally leave the social science in the Middle Ages. These ways of thinking make one "thick as a brick" to promising, open perspectives. I pay a very high price for such poor-founded [armchair] thinking -- start this bad way and there are many clear and possibly useful perspectives you will not even be able to entertain -- among them certainly findings nearer to the truth.

I think "consciousness " is based on specific heart frequency threshold rate. Consciousness may be a multi-dimensional phenomena, e.g., age, health, foods, blood pressure,... various circumstances etc. There may be few layers between consciousness and "consciousness. For example the extreme unconsciousness limit point may be "death", where coma may be a stabilizable state before death, and ordinary unconsciousness may be stronger than a sleep....

Mathematically, it is may be a nonlinear phenomena that may be represented by multidimensional partial differential equation system. It can be studied by dimensional reduction for visualization, where one may be able to categorize various dynamical and stationary stages(from consciousness to unconsciousness) that may arise in such complex phenomenon.

see link

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%8A

The AVPU standard has four possible scoring results (as opposed to 13 possible scores on the Glasgow Trance Scale). The evaluator should always work from best (A) to worst (U) to avoid unnecessary tests on clearly conscious patients. The four possible recordable results are:

Attentive: It is a measure given to the patient when he is alert and aware of what is around him (even if the patient is disoriented). This patient will have spontaneously open eyes, he will respond to sound (although he may be confused) and will have a physical motor function.

Phonetic: The patient provides a type of response when speaking to him, which can be on any of the three metrics of the eye, sound, or movement - for example, the patient opens his eye when asked "Are you okay?" The response may be as few as snoring, whining, or a slight move of one of the limbs when asked to do so.

Pain: The patient responds to any of the three measures when feeling pain, such as rubbing the sternum or by pressing the fingers. A patient with a certain level of consciousness (a completely conscious patient who does not need an stimulus) may respond by using his voice, moving it, or moving part of his body (including his abnormal position).

Unresponsive: Sometimes seen as "unconscious", this score is recorded if the patient does not give any response to the eye, sound, or movement of sound or pain.

Consciousness is usually measured by the amount of perceived awareness of an individual in relation to the surroundings

@Roman Poznanski : I concur. Matter is far from being inanimate. All of creation is conscious in varying degrees. Matter is low in Consciousness, whereas living, animate beings are the opposite.

@ Brad Jesness : Yes, Consciousness cannot be empirically deined or objectively measured. It also exists in varying degrees, spatially, temporally.

@ Ranjan Parekh : "measured by the amount of perceived awareness"...Is awareness measurable, quantifiable?

Regards

Assuming that you are not talking about the medical definition of a human being conscious but the concept that generalizes self-awareness, then you need to state your assumptions.

If you believe in the tenets of strong AI, then anything intelligent enough is conscious, and your criterion is the Turing test.

If you don't, then you really can't prove that anyone or thing other than yourself is conscious (Descarte's argument).

Y(J)S