What Is Consciousness?

[nailit]

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

[naomi24]

The words ‘life force’ spring to mind – something that a dead body no longer possesses. Perhaps consciousness (the soul?), is the ‘life force’ continually retaining whatever experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions life provokes, and eventually surviving corporal death – so no worms. If that is so, then in the absence of the brain that created it, it could never grow or expand.

[pixie373]

Mibs, I'm not sure it's only humans- it's difficult to tell with animals. They (some, at least) feel emotions, learn and can work things out. They are also irrational sometimes, like people and unlike computers.
To add to your post naomi- it could never grow, expand or retain the memory, so I'm not sure what it would consist of.

[mibn2cweus]

The things we do in life set into motion a chain of cause and effect that continues indefinitely and that to some extent reflects the actions, choices and values we cherished and fostered while we were alive and able to, so that in some respect in the process of living in our own particular and unique way we achieve a kind of immortality.

[Khandro]

Don't forget plants;
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

[pixie373]

Yes - i see what you mean, mibs.
khandro- a sentient plant is an animal isn't it?

[jim360]

Sometimes the lines between plant and animal are blurred. I think it's argued that fungi, for example, are sort of in between, because they have a "plant-like" existence (by which I mean stationary), but with animal-like structures such as chitin (which no plant has but is found in insects etc). Also lichen, which is altogether different again from plant, animal, fungi...

Interesting link, Khandro.

[Khandro]

jim; Perhaps our categories of 'animal' 'vegetable' and even 'mineral' are somewhat clumsy, and may one day be re-assessed.
I'm tempted to quote a wonderful passage from D.H.Lawrence on the subject, but I'm being summoned away, maybe later.

[Hypognosis]

Mibn's… somewhat macabre… post on page 3 did give me pause for thought. Why is it that we take it for granted that 'soul' and body separate at the moment of death and the consciousness does not suffer the kind of 'in-coffin experience' so lovingly detailed in Mib's post?
:-\

I'm only halfway through the piece Mibs linked to and I find that the thoughts I expressed earlier are none too original, after all.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi

Naomi the arch atheist and theist impaler?

Geller, von Danicken and now "life force…surviving corporeal death", all in one week?
I'm beginning to wonder whether your account has been hacked by some theist, trying to undermine your reputation.

[naomi24]

It hasn't.

[pixie373]

To be honest, the logic doesn't follow for me, either, hypognosis. I agree with him about classification - i think there was also some debate about sponges? First classified as plants and then changed to animal when it was discovered they had more in common with animals. So that could be down to human error, rather than something groundbreaking.

[pixie373]

...jim. Autocorrect!

[jomifl]

It is a classification/semantics problem, nothing more.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi (08:10) and pixie (08:17)

Ghost stories vary a lot. Some supposedly react to or interact with observers, whilst other stories describe an unresponsive 'action replay' of some traumatic event from the past.

The first kind hints at a surviving consciouness, the latter suggests your "can't grow/change" idea.

Personally I am fascinated about whether ghosts are artefacts of brain processes in the observer(s) or if they really are external and can be caught on camera in a consistent manner. (Proper Infra red cams rather than night vision photomultipliers might prove interesting).

[pixie373]

Yes, that's true. My thoughts are that it's a combination of internal/external. "Something" sets it off, but if it were purely external, i should be possible to prove something at some time (over thousands of years) to somebody who wasn't present.

[naomi24]

Pixie, //should be possible to prove something at some time (over thousands of years) to somebody who wasn't present.//

You said that earlier, and I’ll ask again, why should it?

We’ve only just managed to capture a picture of ball lightning, something that until the 1960s was not widely believed to really exist. How many people who saw it prior to that have been deemed 'nuts'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/20/ball-lightning-video_n_4630357.html

[ludwig]

// they have a "plant-like" existence (by which I mean stationary), but with animal-like structures such as chitin (which no plant has but is found in insects etc). //

..sounds like my teenage son. I do sometimes suspect he may be self aware.

[pixie373]

//Pixie, //should be possible to prove something at some time (over thousands of years) to somebody who wasn't present.//

because that's how we'll find out the truth. Thousands (millions?) of personal anecdotes with no evidence haven't got us any further on.

[pixie373]

...bit like religion, really.

[naomi24]

Pixie, that’s no answer. You claim it should be possible to prove something – I’m asking why you think it should it be possible?