A look at consciousness.

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by MeAgain, Apr 26, 2018.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Thanks for all the replies.

    But without addressing them, I'd like to move on to what consciousness isn't.
    And feel free to agree, disagree, or comment.
    I'm taking theses examples form Julian Jaynes.

    Consciousness is not a copy of experience.
    Consciousness is not the sum total of your experiences as we can see if we stop and think about how much we retain of what we experience. If after walking into a strange room and then exiting, I were to ask you to describe the pictures on the wall, or where the electrical outlets were located, most of us would have a hard time remembering even though we surely experienced all those features in our visual field.
    We selectively retain, or are conscious of, only certain parts of our experiences.

    Consciousness is not necessary for learning.
    One way we know this is from Pavlov's signal learning.

    The learning of motor skills is another. Consciousness sets up the initial goals and preparation to learning the task at hand, but after that consciousness of what you're trying to accomplish often times merely gets in the way. To be completely conscious of every aspect of learning how to hit a baseball or play the piano would lead to disaster. This is supported by several theories.
    Consciousness is not necessary for thinking.
    Place any two dissimilar objects on the table in front of you. Now pick them up one at a time and determine which is heavier.
    What have you done? You felt the texture, shape, hardness, etc. of the objects and announced which is heavier. But did you think about how you determined which is heavier as you made the determination? (See Karl Marbe, the gap between thoughts)

    Consciousness is not necessary for reasoning.
    Many examples of eureka moments are well documented among scientists and others. Nikola Tesla's idea for an efficient AC motor came to him as he strolled in the park reciting Faust. He immediately sketched out the design with his walking stick.

    The proof for Fuchsian functions came to Jules-Henri Poincaré without conscious thought.
    Paul McCartney claims there was no conscious thought process in the writing of the song "Yesterday".
     
  2. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Consciousness, defined as subjective phenomenal awareness, is the most immediately accessible aspect of reality: As Descartes expressed it, I think, therefore I am. Chalmers considered the "hard problem" of consciousness to be explaining why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences--i.e., why we aren't zombies. Evolutionary psychology can't explain why this is an advantage from the standpoint of survival value. As you say, consciousness is not necessary for thinking or reasoning. Atheist horseman, Daniel Dennett, tries to solve the problem by excluding phenomenal awareness from his concept of consciousness, thereby challenging the most basic feature of our experience. Most of our behavior results from autonomic processes or semiconscious decisions and behaviors. Consciousness is reserved for the big policy decisions integrating the various modules of our brain's into a choherent cognitive map. Consciousness entails sentience plus cognition: what the ancients used to call "ensoulment". The evolutionary value of subjective awareness remains obscure. Yet without it, the universe would go unappreciated. Is that it's function?
    chalmers hard problem - Yahoo Video Search Results
    consciousness - Yahoo Video Search Results
    consciousness - Yahoo Video Search Results

    consciousness - Yahoo Video Search Results
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2018
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I didn't really learn a lot from the first two links, that last one was too long.
     
  4. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    I'm familiar with Chalmers Problem of Consciousness, so I'll briefly oversimplify his assertions. Chalmers dissects the understanding of Consciousness into 2 parts. There is an "Easy" Problem of Consciousness which is understanding the mechanistic aspects of the brain and how they correlate with conscious phenomena. For instance, we might be able to dissect all the structures of the eye, how they are connected in the brain en route to the occipital lobe and note the role of the optic nerve, all the rods, cones and visual cells that correlate with visual processes.

    Then there is a "Hard" Problem of Consciousness, which is understanding what it's like to be conscious, which might best be illustrated with a thought Experiment, which I've heard Chalmers discuss elsewhere but I don't know if it originated with him...

    Imagine there is scientist extraordinaire Lucy who knows everything there is to know about brain processes, she has all the information about every connection, pathway, cell, etc. The only thing is, she has grown up in a home completely devoid of color. She has even learned about color, such as wavelengths, frequencies etc. so she knows that it exists and understands what it is, but has never experienced it. One day Lucy finally gets to leave her home and goes outside to finally experience color, presumably there is some new insight that Lucy has gained about color in experiencing it, which prior she did not possess.
     
  5. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Well, Lucy is just gaining an additional experience.
    Understanding the mechanical aspects of color is not the same thing as experiencing color.

    For example I can study the workings of an automobile and understand how every nut and bolt contribute to the final operation of the machine.
    That's not the same as actually building one, starting it up, and going for a drive.

    So different nerves, neurons, and other physics are activated when she sees color. Naturally this will mean she has new and different inputs to process.
     
  6. Deidre

    Deidre Visitor

    If consciousness is not necessary for reasoning as stated above, why can’t an unconscious person reason, then? I don’t think we can definitively say that consciousness and reasoning aren’t tied together, in some way.
     
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Note the comment by Paul McCartney:

    I think it has to do with how you define consciousness and unconsciousness.
     
  8. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    Exactly so there is some immeasurable aspect of consciousness, I think this is generally referred to as qualia.

    I don't know if this necessarily suggests consciousness is immaterial or anything but it does make it elusive. Personally, I feel, in theory, we could go MUCH further in understanding the easy problem of consciousness, if we didn't have stringent societal formalities in place such as ethical regulations, concerns and what not, to further understand many aspects of the easy problem of consciousness, I am thinking we'll likely have to turn to learning via AI if that is something that is to be pursued in the foreseeable future but I think the hard problem likely remains a mystery well beyond our lifetimes.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  9. Addressing the hard problem, what is it like to be anything? Perhaps we place too much emphasis on the ins and outs of our daily lives. Is it really that important that a brain is needed to place an object on a shelf, for instance, or is it the feeling of our body altogether that is of utmost significance? I'm trying to disassociate between the zombie and the sentient being that experiences qualia. I believe we are sort of both. The energy we are composed of is what contains the feels, not the intricacies of our thoughts or the planning. And when we die, though it seems gross to decompose, the relationship between our molecules remains. But the bodily awareness I suppose is snapped somewhat, and perhaps there is an increased synergy between the energy of the body and the energy of the entire universe.

    The zombie does things without thinking, like a zombie. Me typing, for instance, or turning off a light. Most of what we do is simply mechanical. Even the words we speak. We train ourselves to say appropriate things at appropriate times, even. But still life is full of meaning.

    I think the reason we aren't zombies probably has something to do with other living organisms. I gave the turning off the light example. Well I don't think I do this for selfish reasons, per se, but to save energy. In my case because it costs others money. In a way the whole thing boils down to others. What makes something a zombie is primarily its disconnection from others. And I'm not sure we would experience qualia at all if we didn't have others to feel about, to relate it to.

    Imagine being on a deserted island. I wouldn't be surprised at all if qualia quickly lost its substance. And I think people report this who have been subjected too long to isolation. They say they can barely stand being alive after a time.

    Where does feeling itself come from? Perhaps our connection to others. Maybe this sounds wishy washy, but I'm curious as to how that understanding began. That awareness that others weren't objects.

    Long ago we didn't have mirrors and likely couldn't recognize ourselves if we did, yet there were familial ties to be certain. Where does this come from? Why weren't we evolutionarily trained to see objects instead of people, especially in a world full of objects? Why did a mother rodent ever love its offspring in the first place? It's quite peculiar.

    But this is where I think qualia comes from, from love I suppose. Spiritual? Well, I don't know...where did love originate? Why isn't that as much of a question as how did life begin, actually. Evolutionary advantages to love, sure. But evolutionary advantages for the survival of an object? It seems it must have already been there.
     
  10. wilsjane

    wilsjane Nutty Professor HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    6,116
    Likes Received:
    4,958
    All this has got me thinking quite a bit about people reporting various states of mind and floating during near death experiences, particularly after being shocked from cardiac arrest.

    However, I have never come across any stories following general anesthetic.

    This is all leading be to believe that the mind changes as the brains oxygen levels falls. I am now wondering if the same is true during dreaming.
    If I was working at a university now, I would look for volunteers who dream a lot to agree to wear a pulse oximetry probe in bed to record their oxygen saturation and then look at the timeline connection to their dreams.

    No doubt, my title would change to professor Frankenstein. :astonished::astonished::astonished:

    PS, a pulse oximetry probe clips onto your finger. NOT a mass of wires coming out of your head like in the horror films. LOL
     
  11. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Sam Harris, one of the so-called "Four Horsemen" of modern atheism and a neuroscientist tells us: "The idea that brains cause consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove it or disprove it." (The End of Faith). I think part of the difficulty is that we're to close to the problem. Consciousness, defined as subjective phenomenal awareness, is the most immediate experience we have. There is no external vantage point we have to study it objectively. From a Darwinian perspective, it is difficult to understand why consciousness would evolve, since it would seem to give no special survival value to high-functioning zombies and would be a remarkably fortuitous development for a spandrel (by-product). Besides the problem of accounting for the subjective experience of mental states, science has yet to account for the "binding problem" (how disparate brain activities are integrated into a unified sense of self. The two prevailing theories of consciousness formation are :the emergence theory ("consciousness emerges at a critical threshold of computational complexity among the brain's neurons" ) and panpsychism (proto-consciousness is a property of all matter). The latter view was embraced by some heavy-hitters in philosophy: Spinoza, Leibniz, and Alfred North Whitehead. The so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics by Bohr, Heisenberg and Wignor that observation of the state of a quantum particle forces it to conform to one probability. This suggests that human consciousness may somehow influence the state of physical reality at the quantum level. Frustrating as it may seem, these are the mysteries and paradoxes we have to live with when it comes to the most immediate aspect of our existence.
     
  12. There is absolutely no way to study it. All we can do is examine its faculties and hopefully not blind our imaginations so much through faith in science or religion or whatever mental constraint that its faculties are stunted through our own self-imposed limited awareness. A human being has the capacity to perceive the future, to influence the future and the past from the immediate present. But if you don't believe in any of this, it's unlikely that you will gain further insight into the capacity of your own consciousness, and saying that it's an impossibility stunts the ability of others to perceive as well. It's not so much that we're studying consciousness, but that we're engaged in a struggle as to what is "appropriate consciousness" for a person to have. We have plenty of pills to tell us that.
     
    Moonglow181 likes this.
  13. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,916

    You are very intelligent, and I like your replies on this forum pretty much.

    I have thought about what consciousness is quite extensively, and simply think it is a state of being...nothing mystical about that......and all of life has it to some extent......although, humans are the only animal that sits around contemplating its naval, as far as we know.....trying to find a reason for his existence, where as other creatures are too busy in just surviving. If all of consciousness is one, I would not relegate it to just humans.
     
  14. Thanks. I like you too. But I have been a jerk in the past. I was going through some difficulties, but they put me on monthly injections of medicine and I am better now.

    I guess I'm kind of divided as to whether consciousness is mystical. By mystical I simply mean mysterious. On the one hand it leaves one full of wonder; on the other hand we know it all too well, don't we? I wouldn't, relegate it to humans either. Lately I've been thinking that energy and life really are just synonymous. People keep saying that all matter is energy, but people don't really seem to buy it. But it is. This is all just energy and it has being. I think all energy has being, and in being is conscious.

    That's what I've been trying to say. We absorb information and we release information. It doesn't matter if we're live or dead. That's the zombie effect...all of these details and motor mechanistic ways of the brain. The way it, a big blob of energy, organizes data vs. the way any other form of energy organizes data. What's the difference besides the obvious?

    I think perhaps we confuse all of these ins and outs for the life energy itself.
     
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    This is a good segue for looking at where consciousness is located.

    We know that altering the chemistry or structure of the brain can also alter our perceptions, or what we're conscious of. But does this mean that the brain creates consciousness and a damaged brain produces altered consciousness or that some innate "perfect" thing called consciousness must make use of the damaged brain and thus our perceived consciousness is affected?

    And can we assume that consciousness is separate from the brain or a product of the brain?

    This brings us to the question of where consciousness is located.
    Most people would say that consciousness resides in their heads. If we're presented with a difficult problem we introspect, close out eyes and look "within", or imagine solutions to the problem "in our head". Further we assume others do the same thing. We visualize a space in everyone's head where consciousness resides.
    But this has not always been so. The ancient Egyptians considered the heart to be the seat of intelligence and thus consciousness.
    Today science considers the brain to be the seat of consciousness.

    However, if we can credit out of body experiences we will find that consciousness has been reported in locations outside of one's head. Anesthesia is one reported cause.
    Studies are mixed.
     
  16. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    what if we are no where near our bodies at all, but in another universe entirely, controlling them, as if they were mechanical drones, with perfect sensory feedback,
    through an infinitely emersive occulus? not actually a new thought.

    i am not however aware of any seriously and honestly objective 'studies', that indicate mind, rather then spirit or our complex of preferences, independent of a functioning brain.

    and no, perceptions are not what we are conscious of, only how we are conscious of them. we can however create new configurations to perceive, every bit as well, without the aid of externally to internally introducing biologically active substances. this is not the same as the con game play on words of those who would dazzle us that all is belief and there is nothing physical nor objective on which to stub your toe.
     
  17. Lovelane

    Lovelane Members

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    3
    when I'm not hangover then I'm conscious :grin:
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,783
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Your first sentence seems to be nothing more than a restatement of the mind body problem. Is the mind separate from the body?
    I'm using the term mind and consciousness interchangeably.

    You second sentence seems to refute the first question (or at least answer it) by claiming that the mind and body are not separate.

    The third point, seems to be that we are not conscious of our perceptions, we don't know that we see, hear, smell, etc. only how we see etc. I don't understand this point.

    Fourth, we can create new perceptions without biological drugs? I don't know about creating new perceptions, but certainly we can experience things that we have previously ignored.

    Fifth, it depends on how you define objectivity and physical.
     
  19. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    391
    Consciousness could be like one of those lights in a room that can slowly dim or become brighter. The brighter it becomes the more it's conscious of.
     
  20. McFuddy

    McFuddy Visitor

    You just described The matrix in all the particulars that matter.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice