Autumn Quiz 2024 In Aid Of Romanian Aid...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
What Is Consciousness?
184 Answers
A sort of carry over from my "question for naomi" thread.
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/I did say thoughts can’t be examined – and they can’t – because for that to happen we would need to fully comprehend their physical substance./
Naomi , perhaps you are using a different definition of the word 'thought' to the rest of us. Simple thoughts such as recognising shapes and feeling various stimuli can be detected and examined. More complex thoughts such as feeling the presence of god or appreciating the works of Mozart may take longer to detect but it is surely only a matter of time.
Naomi , perhaps you are using a different definition of the word 'thought' to the rest of us. Simple thoughts such as recognising shapes and feeling various stimuli can be detected and examined. More complex thoughts such as feeling the presence of god or appreciating the works of Mozart may take longer to detect but it is surely only a matter of time.
I disagree that I misunderstood my own link. I think I understood it very well, in fact. But whatever.
If I do get stroppy, perhaps it's because I am in this case slightly surprised, because I was trying to take a conservative position on this. I started straight off by admitting that "I didn't know"... in this case partly because this falls outside my area of study anyway but also because the study is still in its infancy. I had thought this was fair enough. And yet apparently not. Oh well.
Moving on... there is some disagreement perhaps as to what consciousness even means, ditto thought, but in as much as there is agreement it seems clear that there is a huge dependence on physical processes. Here again I'm going to make a contentious claim, which is that we don't need to fully understand the physical processes in order to examine them. Treating the entire process as a black box works very well and produces real results in all sorts of cases, and I fully expect that the same will work here and that we will be able to continue pushing back the boundaries of analysing thoughts and consciousness and emotion using the current approaches. Perhaps at some point they will be exhausted and something new will be needed, but we're far off that point yet. We've barely even begun to try this approach and apparently it's yielding extraordinary results -- from the ability to predict people's actions before they themselves know what they will do, to the ability to identify emotions from brainwave patterns, and so on.
It seems evident that the physical component of thought is vital to its operation. I don't expect this picture to change, but I might be surprised.
If I do get stroppy, perhaps it's because I am in this case slightly surprised, because I was trying to take a conservative position on this. I started straight off by admitting that "I didn't know"... in this case partly because this falls outside my area of study anyway but also because the study is still in its infancy. I had thought this was fair enough. And yet apparently not. Oh well.
Moving on... there is some disagreement perhaps as to what consciousness even means, ditto thought, but in as much as there is agreement it seems clear that there is a huge dependence on physical processes. Here again I'm going to make a contentious claim, which is that we don't need to fully understand the physical processes in order to examine them. Treating the entire process as a black box works very well and produces real results in all sorts of cases, and I fully expect that the same will work here and that we will be able to continue pushing back the boundaries of analysing thoughts and consciousness and emotion using the current approaches. Perhaps at some point they will be exhausted and something new will be needed, but we're far off that point yet. We've barely even begun to try this approach and apparently it's yielding extraordinary results -- from the ability to predict people's actions before they themselves know what they will do, to the ability to identify emotions from brainwave patterns, and so on.
It seems evident that the physical component of thought is vital to its operation. I don't expect this picture to change, but I might be surprised.
Jim, that "we don't need to fully understand the physical processes in order to examine them" seems a bit of a blasé attitude to me. You are forgetting that the question isn’t simply "What is Consciousness?", but "Can consciousness survive [death] (in whatever shape or form)." Don’t you think that to answer that question, rather than accepting half-measures, you would need to know as much as possible about it?
I do think we ought to try to understand things as well as possible. In this case, I think that we're on the right track towards doing that. As for the "blasé attitude" -- no, not really. It seems rather closer to pragmatism. We can't expect to discover the "final answer" without passing through several "half-measures" along the way (there probably isn't a final answer anyway, which leaves only the half-measures).
I've not forgotten the question, either. I don't think that you can answer the second question of whether consciousness can outlast death before you know what consciousness is. And as soon as you have an answer to that question, the answer to the second one follows automatically, without further thought: because if consciousness is entirely tied to physical processes within the body then automatically it stops with death; and, if not, then it doesn't. There is no separation between the two questions.
As far as I can see, there are strong reasons to suspect that consciousness and thought are entirely physical processes occurring within the body. And, equally, there aren't any strong reasons to suspect otherwise. This is not a definitive answer, but it is the fairest representation of the current position.
I've not forgotten the question, either. I don't think that you can answer the second question of whether consciousness can outlast death before you know what consciousness is. And as soon as you have an answer to that question, the answer to the second one follows automatically, without further thought: because if consciousness is entirely tied to physical processes within the body then automatically it stops with death; and, if not, then it doesn't. There is no separation between the two questions.
As far as I can see, there are strong reasons to suspect that consciousness and thought are entirely physical processes occurring within the body. And, equally, there aren't any strong reasons to suspect otherwise. This is not a definitive answer, but it is the fairest representation of the current position.
I’m not sure that’s right. Discovering what consciousness is won’t necessarily give us an insight into any potential ex-corporal behaviour.
//there are strong reasons to suspect that consciousness and thought are entirely physical processes occurring within the body. And, equally, there aren't any strong reasons to suspect otherwise.//
What strong reasons? Many would disagree with you. As I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In light of the millions of accounts of experience of the supernatural, which you’re discounting completely, whether or not thoughts and emotions once created remain confined must surely be open to speculation.
//there are strong reasons to suspect that consciousness and thought are entirely physical processes occurring within the body. And, equally, there aren't any strong reasons to suspect otherwise.//
What strong reasons? Many would disagree with you. As I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In light of the millions of accounts of experience of the supernatural, which you’re discounting completely, whether or not thoughts and emotions once created remain confined must surely be open to speculation.
//As I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.//
This is true- but you can't prove the absence of something anyway - as with religion. You can say that any evidence we have points to other causes, so makes them far more likely. The only way sometimes to know what it isn't, is to work out what it is. Anecdotes are not evidence in any way, neither is belief.
This is true- but you can't prove the absence of something anyway - as with religion. You can say that any evidence we have points to other causes, so makes them far more likely. The only way sometimes to know what it isn't, is to work out what it is. Anecdotes are not evidence in any way, neither is belief.
Old_Geezer beat me to it, in this thread, at least but I have speculated about the "brain as transmitter/receiver" idea, probably over 15 years ago (dialup bulletin-board era!)
Paranormal stuff interests me but only in the sense that I desire to rationalise its phenomena in order to fit with my atheist viewpoint, with which externalised, death-surviving consciousness stands in complete opposition.
e.g. External consciouness would allow telepathy to violate inverse square law and work across separations of thousands of miles simply by being two consciousnesses adjacent to one another in some 'other dimension', requiring only minute quantities of energy transmission.
Paranormal stuff interests me but only in the sense that I desire to rationalise its phenomena in order to fit with my atheist viewpoint, with which externalised, death-surviving consciousness stands in complete opposition.
e.g. External consciouness would allow telepathy to violate inverse square law and work across separations of thousands of miles simply by being two consciousnesses adjacent to one another in some 'other dimension', requiring only minute quantities of energy transmission.
I provided my reasons for not admitting personal accounts as solid evidence in another thread. I'm not going to repeat it here. It's an entirely reasonable position which isn't "dismissing completely", or out of hand, or anything else.
And earlier in the thread I provided examples of what I thought the "strong reasons" were. If you, or anyone else, disagrees with me, that's fine, although I can't see why. I've not definitively ruled anything out. The balance of probability, as far as I can see, lends itself strongly to one side rather than the other. At the moment I can't really add anything to that, partly because I don't want to repeat myself too much but mainly because I've run out of things to say on this topic. After all, another thing I said almost at the very beginning of this thread was that I didn't really know much about it.
In reference to absence of evidence, I think you are confusing this with "presence of negative evidence", which is a different thing entirely. I pointed that out a while ago, and won't repeat the argument fully here since I don't think you were persuaded last time, but the gist of it is that "absence of evidence" properly applies to scenarios in which there is, literally, no evidence -- of any kind at all. It doesn't apply in the cases where there has been an active search for and a gathering of evidence, and when that which was sought does not appear. In those circumstances I think often what you end up meaning, as far as I can see, is something rather closer to "evidence of absence is not evidence of absence". I dare say you won't agree with that, but that's how it comes across.
And earlier in the thread I provided examples of what I thought the "strong reasons" were. If you, or anyone else, disagrees with me, that's fine, although I can't see why. I've not definitively ruled anything out. The balance of probability, as far as I can see, lends itself strongly to one side rather than the other. At the moment I can't really add anything to that, partly because I don't want to repeat myself too much but mainly because I've run out of things to say on this topic. After all, another thing I said almost at the very beginning of this thread was that I didn't really know much about it.
In reference to absence of evidence, I think you are confusing this with "presence of negative evidence", which is a different thing entirely. I pointed that out a while ago, and won't repeat the argument fully here since I don't think you were persuaded last time, but the gist of it is that "absence of evidence" properly applies to scenarios in which there is, literally, no evidence -- of any kind at all. It doesn't apply in the cases where there has been an active search for and a gathering of evidence, and when that which was sought does not appear. In those circumstances I think often what you end up meaning, as far as I can see, is something rather closer to "evidence of absence is not evidence of absence". I dare say you won't agree with that, but that's how it comes across.
It is difficult to define consciousness without unwittingly setting up a dividing line between those entities which possess it and those which don't, from which arise emotive debates such as how certain animal species are prepared for the table, or at what stage of foetal development consciousness first begins to manifest itself and so on.
On a more frivolous level, you might want to split hairs about whether a computer, which successfully passes the Turing test also enjoys consciousness or if it is merely a stream of processor operations which produce the outward appearance of one. Having done that, one might wish to contemplate whether WE are, likewise just the outward manifestation of a stream of 'neural processor' "operations".
What is it?'
At the most basic level, sensory input has to be continually compared to what is in memory, to comprehend what is being sensed. On another level, there's a decision-making process (eat/fight/mate/protect offspring etc). On a more sentient level, ability to plan future actions, cache food, nest building and so on. Somewhere along this increasing level of sophistication, a sense of self emerges, perhaps as a result of the brain organising memories into a narrative sequence. Some animal species acknowledge their own reflection as being themselves, the majority do not. Capacity for self-awareness is not a criterion I would apply to consciousness, in its general sense.
I will understand if you prefer to confine this question solely to human consciousness but, if so, I will be obliged to ask what others think about 'unconscious' situations, such as non-REM sleep, coma, head trauma, severe cognitive impairment.
On a more frivolous level, you might want to split hairs about whether a computer, which successfully passes the Turing test also enjoys consciousness or if it is merely a stream of processor operations which produce the outward appearance of one. Having done that, one might wish to contemplate whether WE are, likewise just the outward manifestation of a stream of 'neural processor' "operations".
What is it?'
At the most basic level, sensory input has to be continually compared to what is in memory, to comprehend what is being sensed. On another level, there's a decision-making process (eat/fight/mate/protect offspring etc). On a more sentient level, ability to plan future actions, cache food, nest building and so on. Somewhere along this increasing level of sophistication, a sense of self emerges, perhaps as a result of the brain organising memories into a narrative sequence. Some animal species acknowledge their own reflection as being themselves, the majority do not. Capacity for self-awareness is not a criterion I would apply to consciousness, in its general sense.
I will understand if you prefer to confine this question solely to human consciousness but, if so, I will be obliged to ask what others think about 'unconscious' situations, such as non-REM sleep, coma, head trauma, severe cognitive impairment.
Hypognosis, your last paragraph shows why self-awareness is not consciousness. I am going to look up the "Turing test" now- but i can't see how any test of consciousness will ignore reflexes or emotions which computers don't have. Even the most basic hospital tests for consciousness check for pain reflex first.
@pixie
I agree with your "self-awareness is not consciousness" and I already said (in different words) that it is possible to be conscious yet lack self awareness.
Watching those Reed Warblers feeding 'Cuckoozilla', on Springwatch, I can't help be reminded of the phrase 'bird brained'.
I don't wish to belittle animals, by calling them robotic, or similar but it's tempting, in the face of something on that scale. As I said previously, it's the start of a slippery slope (towards inhumane treatment).
Re: Turing test. I don't know if the test panel are barred from making emotion/relationship type questions which the computer program would struggle on but there are personality problems which manifest themselves as a lack of emotion or interpersonal skills, so it's still a tough call.
I agree with your "self-awareness is not consciousness" and I already said (in different words) that it is possible to be conscious yet lack self awareness.
Watching those Reed Warblers feeding 'Cuckoozilla', on Springwatch, I can't help be reminded of the phrase 'bird brained'.
I don't wish to belittle animals, by calling them robotic, or similar but it's tempting, in the face of something on that scale. As I said previously, it's the start of a slippery slope (towards inhumane treatment).
Re: Turing test. I don't know if the test panel are barred from making emotion/relationship type questions which the computer program would struggle on but there are personality problems which manifest themselves as a lack of emotion or interpersonal skills, so it's still a tough call.
Personally, I find the notion of any form of consciousness whatsoever possible to someone whose brain and indeed tools of perception (the senses) or means of action (a living physical body) having ceased to function, completely and utterly absurd. Even in supposing some form of consciousness were possible of what possible use would that be to someone who has lost their means of perceiving or interacting with the outside world? Of what value would consciousness be to a body decomposing in its grave, experiencing the maggots chewing away at their flesh, the worms crawling in and out of their rotting brain or the torment of cremation as their burning body turned to ash and disintegrated into dust?
We are conscious for one reason and one reason only, because of the evolutionary advantage the level of consciousness we are able to achieve affords us, allowing us to advance beyond the only kind of existence that worms or maggots possess the means and ability to enjoy. The form of consciousness only we as humans have the capacity to realise is a product of choosing to realise that capacity, first through using our brain to think and then to reason and ultimately to realise we have a very good reason to exist and have knowledge of that existence . . . because we can.
http://
We are conscious for one reason and one reason only, because of the evolutionary advantage the level of consciousness we are able to achieve affords us, allowing us to advance beyond the only kind of existence that worms or maggots possess the means and ability to enjoy. The form of consciousness only we as humans have the capacity to realise is a product of choosing to realise that capacity, first through using our brain to think and then to reason and ultimately to realise we have a very good reason to exist and have knowledge of that existence . . . because we can.
http://
