Consciousness: Emergent property or A'Priori condition?

It is. Kinda don't see the connection between hydrogen-->water and emergent consciousness but that's probably just me. No worries.

This is exactly why I suggested you are prejudiced. So here's a few facts for you and you're welcome to call them "laughable" if you like.

Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA whilst on LSD.
http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm
http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html
Dr. Kary Mullis, nobel prize in biochemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis#Use_of_LSD
Steve Jobs
http://www.networkworld.com/communi...why-he-indulged-marijuana-and-his-1975-arrest

That's just a couple famous ones.

I don't discount your claim that consciousness as we (barely) understand it is "emergent" from a CNS. That's worthy of more discussion and perspectives.
It was you however that felt that any perspective borne of thought whilst tripping is laughable when there is ample evidence that it is not.
Closed mindedness is never what has moved scientific knowledge forward.

 

It's a well known example used by philosophers of mind to define the phenomenon of emergence.

Establishing that some very clever people, who have become high achievers or done lots of hard work (indubitably while not on drugs), have also taken drugs, is not to establish a connection between their intellectual achievements and abilities and the drugs they took. I may enjoy winding down with a glass of wine, and I may think that that relaxation of my mental faculties plays a part in my ability to think clearly and work hard, but to suggest that the glass of wine has given me the ability to perform intellectual feats I would not otherwise have performed is absurd. It may inspire me, it may relax my body and mind, and that may help me, but it has no part to play in the figuring out of difficult intellectual problems - in fact, by definition, it hinders normal brain function. It does not put me in connection with some deeper truth. This is an idea borne of the childish glamourisation of drug culture. Drugs may be fun, they're not keys to some deeper insight - that's an idiotic idea held by people who don't really understand what intellectual effort is, or the mechanisms by which psychoactive substances affect brain function.

This was just an aside that arose from a comment related to the thread topic, the silly notion of drug-related philosophical insight may be one of your pet biases, but to focus on this issue is to derail this interesting thread by taking it off topic.

 

OK, once again.
For the purposes of this thread can we all come to an agreement that consciousness is the ability to be aware of ones environment and react accordingly.
That's all, very simple.

Now let's consider WHERE to draw the line that we will use to define what constitutes a "directed reaction" to environmental influences.

Many of you are saying that plants and animals don't possess consciousness because they don't have nervous systems as complex as humans, or they don't communicate or exhibit behaviors that we want to equate with consciousness. But most are all anthropomorphic in nature.
Again, just because the dictionary definition of "consciousness" entails "thought" it does not cover all aspects of the phenomena and the definition is constraining. That is my opinion.

This one that Meagain posted best fits my concept for this thread in defining consciousness;

...consciousness as the processing of information at various levels of awareness. Rather than excluding all phenomenon outside the realm of rational thought, this more inclusive definition allows for the existence of altered states, paranormal occurrences, as well as multiple levels/ degrees of consciousness. An expanded view of consciousness may be the only way to really begin to understand what consciousness is and the forms that it takes.

I feel the above captures the very basic idea of consciousness I am considering.

Now where our anthropomorphic failing will pop up with the preceding definition is I'm sure somebody will state that you need a developed nervous system to process information. But as we can see in nature, that is not the case.
Now to address briefly the idea of instinctual response being responsible for behaviors I deem as "directed"
Know Thyself.
You ever examine your own reactions and responses?
A vast majority of behaviors we undertake daily are nothing more the instinctual responses to environmental cues. We have the gift of a very complex nervous system that gives rise to a sense of "self" and that "self" is fragile and arrogant and want's to believe it is in control of all that goes on.

Everyone has come across members of the opposite sex and there is an instant "chemistry" and often a underlying sexual tension, whether acknowledged or not.
What is actually happening is your pheromones and the other persons are a "match" and it instigates responses that we then process with our highly developed nervous system "I'm in love".
Maybe, but it is rooted in genetically programmed instinctual responses.

Point being that if you want to discount animal behaviors as lacking conscious direction because they are simply programmed reactions, so is a lot of what we do.

So I hope it is more clear now what I am considering to qualify as "consciousness".

 

Where in nature do we see life forms without a central nervous system 'processing information'? Do you regard a chemical reaction as a form of 'information processing'? This looks like another definition stretched way beyond its breaking point.

This is true, that's why we often refer to them in the common idiom as 'unconscious' or 'subconscious' reactions. You can act without being aware that you are acting or why. But there is no doubt that in addition to these reactions, humans (and probably other apes and perhaps some other mammals) have some degree of awareness beyond what you call a 'programmed' response. This is what is lacking in forms of life without an advanced CNS, and also in minerals and atoms etc.

 

I think maybe it went over your head.
Postulate 1 is relevant in the sense of considering the degree that the phenomena of consciousness shapes or forms the physical universe. I guess you missed that part.

As far as your conclusion regarding postulate 2, that's all they are, your conclusions. There is ample evidence that the critters you mentioned possess consciousness AS DEFINED IN THE ABOVE POST and as I thought I defined it at the outset.

Again, if you step out of any anthropomorphic definitions regarding consciousness, your arguments are mute. Your points are only valid if we are limiting the discussion to human consciousness alone.

Concerning your position regarding psychedelic substances.
Uhhmmmm...... You do understand that consciousness is a spectrum much like the electromagnetic spectrum with varying levels or states.
The state that we experience as normal waking consciousness has evolved to be the "norm" because it is the state of awareness that is the most conducive to survival and reproduction.
You aren't going to survive long in the African Savanna if you are prone to ecstatic states of consciousness. You will be lion food.
You should look at some of the work by Charles Tart.

What you are doing is quantifying different states of consciousness based upon your limited exposure to other states, I'm assuming.

With consciousness being more like a spectrum and the fact that humans have settled on one particular state does not automatically negate or diminish the value and validity of other states of consciousness.

That is why discussion of psychedelic experience is very relevant to the thread.
Voyage is not taking the thread off topic at all.
The people he mentioned are significant, considering that they took LSD specifically because of the different state of consciousness it provides and the different means of information processing that takes place. It was during an LSD session that Crick envisioned the double-helix and the pieces all fell into place.
Most people don't know that during the 50's and early 60's it was very common practice for the many scientists to ingest 50-100ugs of LSD to try and tackle intractable issues in their research. There was some very good and promising work being done in that very field with LSD, but it was cut short when LSD was declared illegal in 1966.

But it seems you have already voiced you opinion on the matter, so any further presentation of facts will most likely not impress you.

The following quote indicates that you are the one lacking in knowledge on both consciousness, drugs and how the nervous system functions.

As I asked somebody else in another thread and never received an answer; Can you please point to some function, reaction, action, or whatever you may experience that IS NOT the result of the mechanisms of chemicals in your brain.

All you are doing is applying a bias against drugs to this discussion, which is really not needed because any discussion of consciousness should include discussion of altered states of consciousness, drug induced or otherwise.

 

Just missed the bit where you provided any evidence that this may be the case.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

I guess you also missed the idea that this is simply a thought experiment and you of course know that there is no "hard" evidence for what I stated.
The idea of reality being an interplay between consciousness and the physical universe and that it does "construct" our physical reality is becoming a more prevalent idea in physics.

 

Lithium, could you please indicate how or where I stated I wasn't interested in a serious discussion that warranted you giving me neg rep?

I read your posts a few times and gave what you posted serious consideration, and I know there are areas of this discussion that are more that a little nebulous, but I arrived at my position as stated concerning what you posted.

Did you neg rep me because I didn't fall over and exclaim that you are so right and I haven't any idea what I'm talking about?

You have exhibited some education on the topic thus far, but also a very narrow and constrained viewpoint and consideration of the topic.

Very often in research and experimentation it is necessary to pare down the definitions of the variables you are testing in order to better control for variables that are not being tested. That is what I have done concerning the definition of "consciousness" for the purpose of this thread discussion.

Again, why have you concluded by my responses that I was not interested in a serious discussion?

 

The idea that Crick made his discovery of the structure of DNA while tripping on LSD is a widely repeated myth:

 

What is an "a priori condition"?! LOL

 

Indeed. I did however expect there to be some reason for raising the possibility beyond "I took some mind altering substances and thought hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." That's why I overestimated the seriousness of this discussion (for which I apologise) and why it is not a serious debate. The user Meagain has consistently and interestingly refuted the idea that life forms without an advanced CNS can be conscious in any meaningful sense, and I don't think you've managed to push discussion any further than this stumbling block. As it turns out, there seems to be very little substance to the idea.

Please cite your sources for this claim.

 

I thought it was obvious too. It should be for anything that dabbles in philosophy. Jeez.
That is an interesting idea Nox, one reason why I often mention quantum observer effect and quantum entanglement.
I wouldn't be surprised at the neg-rep action though. It falls in line with the kind of self righteousness of a person that knows more than a PhD in theoretical physics. Ya, Dr Amit is out there a bit and being involved in What the bleep isn't exactly credible, but again we'd be nowhere if it wasn't for people that think in unconventional terms. I suspect Lithium would be behind the catholic church jailing Copernicus for heresy. I dunno.
Good point about the timeline of Crick's involvement in the double helix discovery Lithium. Learn something new everyday. However...

LSD was not "newly discovered" in the early 50's. That fact and furthermore heresay that he did not try it until 1967 isn't exactly believable either. But it's common to seek out quotes that back up our position.

While lsd had been around 10years in 51-52, it would be doubtful that he envisioned the double helix while actually under the influence. That said, he is quoted many times as one that believed in the problem solving power of it, him and many other pretty smart cats.
Kary Mullis on the other hand is easily verifiable. But don't bother trying to destroy your paradigm, it's quite clear that its etched in stone. And this isnt a thread to convince people convinced that lsd creates dillusions otherwise.
So again, whatev.

Nox, I want to mull over your position on the nature of consciousness more before I add anything. I'm still of the thought that if CNS based, then consciousness is emergent. If more like what I mentioned earlier about the wisdom of the nature of the universe, then a'priori. Perhaps even pre big bang but again as you said, non knowable.

 

Consciousness is always a consciousness-of. It is not universal outside of life. Existence has no precondition. There is no first cause. Consciousness arises before it becomes causal.

It's emergent.

 

This stems from the idea of subjective idealism which goes back to Plato's times. In modern times thought exercises like Schrodengers Cat and the quantum measurement problem which leads to the quantum observer effect are examples.

 

Meagain:

Never felt a "pre-material" consciousness myself. ;-D

Hope I'm not attacking anyones view point by not feeling that anyone else has either. lol

 

Dejavu:

How can you say that Dejavu?!

Dejavu: Well, Dejavu, I can say it because it can't become causal before arising.

But... isn't it then that it becomes causal as it arises?

Dejavu: Yes, but not necessarily because it arises. It is already causal, in the sense that everything is. Where consciousness becomes its own cause is the origin of self.

Is that why you laugh when you hear it said that nothing inherently exists?

Dejavu: Yes Dejavu! But not only that! lol

(Dejavu addressing himself for fun, not because he has to. )