Consciousness, A Discussion

As I stand before a mirror the Angel of Conciousness speaks : Raise your right hand , Tikoo Woo , and study upon
its image .

Yes , I see right is right . All is well and orderly .

Now stand before your enemy , Tikoo Woo . You and you , raise your swords with your right arms and hands
as though preparing to strike . Swords raise .

I see my enemy is ignorant of what is right . Or is backwardsly obstinant ?

Or is it pathetic dislexia ?

 

I've really been wanting to join in, but I have been busy with a couple of projects. I apologize if I am repeating something that was already brought up----as you can see, I am responding to something on the first page----which is about as far as I have read so far.

ANYWAY----

I wanted to point out that these definitions are, as Guerillabedlam said, Eeeeek. But they are not incorrect. The subject is consciousness and therefore is about being conscious of things.

What these definitions are saying is that consciousness does not include unconscious or subconscious processes. Carl Jung would interject here and point out that it is the ego, acting on its purpose to maintain a consistent personality that serves as the filter to determine what is to be relegated to the subconscious and what is to be relegated to conscious awareness.

Nonetheless, it should be easy to see that subconscious processes work along the same dynamics as conscious processes, otherwise this could not happen:

Or for example, researchers have shown through hypnotic regression, where subjects were taken back to a long past experience, that they could remember all kinds of details about the experience and their surroundings that they were not consciously aware of remembering, and most likely were not consciously aware of at the time becuase it was not the primary focus of the experience and as Meagain pointed out: Consciousness is not stored sensory input due to experience. Nonetheless, under hypnosis, such data can be brought to an awareness, that is similar to a conscious experience.

Another example is that of dreaming which also involves subconscious processes, and yet involves abstract understandings, creativity, metaphorical connections, awareness of qualia, and other mental processes that we associate with conscious activity.

In my opinion, to try to define consciousness by excluding subconscious events and dynamics, is much like the example Mary trying to examine color while living in a black and white world.

 

There are glaringly obvious advantages for conscious animals. Clearly, simple organisms that are sedentary or randomly acquire nutrients and energy have no need for consciousness. As organisms evolved they develop tricks to detect and seek nutrients. While this is an evolutionary advantage and more complex it is not conscious behavior either. Simple detection mechanisms and propulsion triggers are not complex enough to demonstrate any real conscious properties. What does fit in the natural order is the exponential growth of complexity until we have very complex multi cellular creatures literally fighting over resources. Fighting develops real sensory nervous response networks and complex systems that can employ multiple responses. This is not yet what I would call anything close to mammalian consciousness but these are the building blocks of consciousness. Keep in mind that all of this developed in very small organisms with very high metabolisms (or short life cycles) around half a billion years ago.

Enter the predator, something amazing happens in the complex neural nervous systems of predatory animals millions of years later. These systems are complex enough to develop hunting strategies. The ability to learn and remember actions that gave the best results. This evolves further into more and more complex strategies, a large repertoire of tricks to choose from depending on circumstances. This is now the dawn foresight, the best predators develop the ability to think ahead and predict what might happen with different actions. This is the origin of imagination, the ability to think of new strategies and situations that might help in better survival. That is where consciousness begins and originates and why consciousness is a clear evolutionary advantage.

 

And speaking of Mary, Meagain brought up an interesting piece of research, which he has brought up before:

This is very interesting and the results provide some interesting insights into consciousness. However, the one flaw of the research is that we really cannot see what the cat sees, we can only infer what the cat sees.

The cats learned to understand the world without vertical lines, and therefore when they were introduced, it is possible that vertical lines were not necessary to their continuing to make sense of reality for them. Did this mean that there was a true cognitive dissonance and that they truly did not see the vertical lines, or is it that they selectively chose not to acknowledge vertical lines.

The next question is, would this same effect hold true for humans. I don't believe it would. Even in the case of Mary, if she spent her whole life in a black and white environment, and then was suddenly released into the color-filled real world. Barring any physical defects, I believe she would still see color.

One example of this is the common occurence of people seeing colors they have never seen before in psychedelic trips. If they had never seen them before, or even if they are seeing familiar colors in a whole new way, how could they perceive of them if it is their first time to see it, other than that they are able to do so.

Humans can perceive new things directly as long as they are limited to the physical three dimensions. Beyond that, humans can understand greater dimensional objects mathematically and in other abstract manners.

 

Oh shit, this reminds me of a video. Check this out. I'm not saying this is evidence of reading a cats mind or anything like that, just interesting. They are reading the cat's brain activity but I think they are probing the outer occipital visual processing part of the brain and not deeper in the cat mind where consciousness is located. Therefore they are not reading the "minds eye" of the cat and the creepy cat like distortion of a humans face is probably just a creepy coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

 

[SIZE=medium]Of everything I have ever seen Tikoo post----Post #244 is probably my favorite. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And here is one of the points he brings up-----one that is critically important to today, as it is a day (an Age) of Nihilism, as man struggles through the decadence of an overly rational and objectivist world:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]...philosophy bonds a theory of conciousness to a[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]action necessary to wholistic survival . Science is important to it as a diciplined servant , and the servant will[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]be reminded of who is telling who how to think of stuff . Philosophy shall direct the focus of science , and the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]poser Philosophy of Science is much too shallow to take seriously .[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]And yet today----philosophy is in a state of crisis---but of course it is, this is after all, the Age of Nihilism.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Stephen Hawking pointed this out in a book in 2012---that we no longer turn to philosophy to try to understand the nature of being---and that philosophy has not even kept up with scientific advancements.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]But this crisis is still the same one that it has always been----the problem of physical vs. non-physical. This was the problem the last time philosophy was in a state of crisis, and Kant appeared to fix it. He did not resolve the problem, rather he just swept it under a rug, enabling science to move on free of the fetters that held it down. So while we may credit the Modern Age to Descartes, titling him as father, it was Kant that saved it from a mid-term abortion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]But he did such a good job of sweeping the problem under the rug that today, philosophers in England and the US, are so oblivious to the problem----they are playing word games----in hopes that it would give them some yet overlooked clue... They don't even see the problem.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And yet this problem is very key to consciousness----because say what you will, regardless of how it occurs, whether it is real or illusion----consciousness is a non-physical. Philosophy recognized this long before Descartes---it may be present in the physical world---but it is not a 'physical thing.'[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And until we once again face this problem, and truly deal with it---we will continue in the Post-Modern Crisis.[/SIZE]

 

Seems that neuroscientists have a better understanding of consciousness and its location inside the mind and what brain damage correlates to consciousness...
than many posters on here would like to acknowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd8p-GSLgY

(9:20)
"We know from 150 years of clinical neurology that destruction of localized brain regions interferes with specific content of consciousness"

CONSCIOUSNESS IS A STATE THAT IS DEPENDENT AND DERIVED FROM A PHYSICAL NEURAL NETWORK!

 

Full conciousness , to the Idealist , is a property of the perfect brain specimen . Are you less-than-
concious in realizing this ? Or - oh , you are the One among us !!! Just kidding . You are fond of
your friends who promote exclusively a medical definition of conciousness .

I do not mind thinking human conciousness ends with the death of the body ... and maybe you
get 3 more days on account of slow decay .


Madam , says the Doctor , has your husband shown any signs of conciousness yet ?

Yes , sir . When I pinched nis nose to stop his breathing his toe cunvulsed and just as
though it were speaking to me . Is that good ?

Absolutely ... yes , excellent work , and a fine experiment . Did you let off the nose then ?

Not right off , but there was a someone at the door . The police . The neighbor had been
calling in first she saw smoke from our house , then she didn't see smpke , then she ,
then she didn't . So the police were inquiring about smoke signals . No , no , no !!! I do not
know how to smoke like that ! So , I forgot about his nose after that .

 

That sounds too sci-fi ; a story science tells itself .

 

I don't think that is wholly conclusive as there are documented cases that suggest otherwise. For example, neuroscientists are trying to explain why there are cases of individuals with memories that have been lost through brain damage, but were somehow regained (one explanation is that somehow new pathways were created, but this does not answer 'why?' for example. Another explanation is that the mind works on a holographic dynamic, or, that the universe itself is a hologram and such data therefore is not lost, rather that it is dependent on regaining a path to access that holographic data). In fact there are all kinds of strange cases, involving brain damage, such as, for example, the English-speaking individual who suffered brain damage, but once having regained the ability to communicate, could only speak in French even though this person had never learned French. More frequent situations like this are people who regain the ability to speak, but do so in a specific foreign accent that they previously did not have (I believe it was Newscientist that reported these latter cases).

Here is a question for you however----do you think people that are blind from birth dream only in black? Strangely enough, there are reports of such individuals dreaming in color (I believe this was reported, in one case, by an individual who they were able to induce some level of sight to).

Nonetheless, the brain is how we perceive and remember physical reality. It is therefore natural that if the brain is damaged, it would impair such processes of perceiving or recalling physical reality.

In fact there is an idealist answer to this, which is partly provided by Jungian psychology----if the ego, as a filtering mechanism, eliminates almost all non-physical perceptions while conscious for the purposes of enabling us to function and experience physical reality, then it would make sense that any physical impairment to our bodies that would alter or stop various perceptions of our physical reality would prevent us from perceiving beyond those perceptions because our ego would still filter out almost all non-physical perceptions, and because we would believe that the physical impairment thus limits us.

In other words, while physically present in the universe, 'consciousness is a state that is dependent and derived from a physical neural network' because because our ego only allows us to see it from that construct and we therefore believe that such is the way it is.

 

You're still just denying the problem that Mountain Valley Wolf so eloquently stated even exists. We're not getting anywhere, because you're refusing to explain this non-physicality of consciousness.

I've already made points about the nature of time which don't seem to interfere with your gross assumption that all consciousness is just an interaction of dead matter as well.

And you ignore the fact that it doesn't really matter if something physical is producing something non-physical. Now you have to explain how the physical laws of the universe apply to something non-physical, however it was created.

I don't really buy any of it, though, because as far as we can tell, all matter is just an illusion of consciousness. It's just as easy to work "backwards" and supply consciousness as the explanation for everything, and there's really no way to prove otherwise. Again, these people are just ignoring the real crisis and we are not getting anywhere.

 

But how does subjective phenomenal awareness--as distinguished from intelligence and imagination--help the predator? That's the "had problem" Chalmers and others are talking about. Philosopher Thomas Nagel posed the question "What is it like to be a bat?" What is life like for a bat as a subjectively conscious being? It seems likely that science one day will be able to give a full description of bat anatomy, physiology, behavior,cognitive processing, and neuroscience.. But that would not give us any idea of the subjective experience of being batty. To get some idea of that, Nagel suggests three approaches: (1) imitation:e.g., hang upside down in the attic and eat bugs; (2) empathy with bats based on our shared experience as sentient organisms (but that would be limited, because we cannot share the bat's sensory capabilities, like sonar; (3) temporarily transforming ourselves into bats and back again, which would require technology we don't as yet possess--assuming we're not vampires. Such approaches might give us some idea of what being a bat must be like, but certainly not the whole story, because even if we could become bat for a day, we'd probably have trouble interpreting the experience as humans. Thus, Nagel concludes we will probably never be able to find out what it's really like to be a bat. In understanding human consciousness we have an apparent advantage over the bat researchers in that we are human ourselves and can draw on that experience. Yet it still doesn't tell us what is the nature of the remarkable phenomenon of consciousness that is our most immediate encounter with reality. Studies of human anatomy, physiology, behavior, cognitive processing and neuroscience give us the same kind of understanding of us that we have of bats--useful information but not what we need to understand subjective phenomenal awareness. That's the approach taken by Daniel Dennett, which is why many of his colleagues think his Consciousness Explained should better have been entitled Consciousness Explained Away.

 

I currently think the reasoning mind , the social mind , is presented with information . This info presention to your mind could be viewed as
holographic info and even with you at its center ... like the out-of body experience . It is dimensional sensuality , and sure , could as well be
a representation of the universe . Should ever I get the big picture like that , I suppose most of it I won't understand and likely would consider
some parts of it imaginatively - like , hey , I see weird play-dough stuff wavy like gravy .

Shall the reach and stretch of one's conciousness have no limit ?

As far as you can see ... is of a philosophy , a context for understanding .

A nice telescope does help .

And it can be interesting to hear reports of visitors to somewhere Pleidian . Had myself a an exo-planet view one eve ... a dry red desert planet
and there-upon it travelling about - a single creature . A spindly tumbleweed with a thousand eyes . Looked me in the eye . Look out !

I'll prefer the limit of what I can see and understand to be soft at the edges . Way out there , deciding the difference twixt the unknown and the
unknowable is a patient thing to engage in .

 

Seems to me that most people DON"T believe that since because egos and superegos... just read neonspec's following post 272.

Just like all this holographic bullshit, it absolutely strokes the ego to make believe time and space and entropy are all illusions.

 

There's no such thing as non-physical. Everything is physical. The thoughts in your head, the chemicals you interpret as emotions... all emergent properties of trillions of physical interconnected objects. Non-physical only exists in your IMAGINATION and interpolations of the world you've created in your head. In specific PHYSICAL locations in your head!

 

HELP, I've suffered a stroke and now my QUALIA SOUP has no taste!

This is a clinical observation in countless brain disorders. There is literally a specific location in your brain that if destroyed will delete your enjoyment associated with your favorite hobby. Or the love of a spouse, or the good taste of your favorite food, or the experience of color.... It's neither a problem nor any stretch to understand that emotions associated with experiences drive motivations that help survival. If an animal doesn't enjoy eating, it will probably die before another that loves to eat. I can pretty much guarantee you that bats enjoy catching insects in their mouths.

 

This seems like a twisted sort of reasoning to bring into a discussion on evolution, or raising a non-issue. It sounds akin to saying "How does a dogs acute sense of smell or a Eagle's adept vision actually help it? Since humans don't have such an acute sense of smell or vision, how could we ever say it helps the animal?"

 

Your understanding of physics may be incomplete . I , for one of little understanding , would like the physics
of teleportation explained . My experience with it has been curiously boggling . Now , as to psychic physics ... ??
That'd be pertinent to conciousness and unethical to be dismissive of . Should relaxxx be a devotee of a
Philosophy of Science , it may be some ethics are yet to be discovered , peer reviewed and adopted by
a society of concerned scientists . Until then - an ethic shall not exist .

 

^LMF Balls Off!