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

[pixie373]

It is possible for something to be true, but not proven. However, with all the anecdotes, belief, research and attempts, it seems telling that it is "impossible" to prove anything. The same logic i apply to religion. I'll believe it when i see enough convincing evidence, but my natural feeling without that, is that it's a myth.

[naomi24]

Fair enough, but that's a bit different to saying that if there were anything in it, we ought to know about it by now, which is basically what you said.

[naomi24]

... and I don't think it can be compared to religion. Saying you've seen/heard/experienced something you can't explain is rather different to claiming to have seen/heard the Virgin Mary/angels/demons, etc.

[pixie373]

Yes- although not for those claiming it is ghosts or spirits. It is fair to say it's unexplained. That's different from those who claim they know the explanation.

[naomi24]

As I've said before, I think people use the terms 'ghosts' or 'spirits' for want of another form of expression. The unknown can't be positively defined. If it could, it wouldn't be unknown.

[jomifl]

/ Saying you've seen/heard/experienced something you can't explain is rather different to claiming to have seen/heard the Virgin Mary/angels/demons, etc. /
How so? (apart from religious people looking for miracles and deceiving themselves and others being deceived by their senses)?

[naomi24]

Because those claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary etc., are claiming to know exactly what they've seen. It's like people who say they've heard the voice of God speaking to them. How do they know it's God? Because the voice in their head says so?

[naomi24]

From the book that Grasscarp recommended (still not finished it) I've copied this. More to think about.

//….the consciousness of the self is not the brain or the mind. It is associated with them, but apart from them. Consciousness is being considered [by people investigating it] more a sensor or an observer than an integral part of the system, just as the stream of electrons are part of – but separate from – the wire that conducts them. Electrons are indestructible; a wire is not. Would the consciousness, the energy that is the motivator and activator of the brain and nervous system simply disappear at death? Or would it continue in a non-molecular and non-atomic entitle in a form of energy that physics has not yet discovered? //

[jomifl]

No

[jim360]

And electrons aren't indestructible anyway.

[pixie373]

////….the consciousness of the self is not the brain or the mind. It is associated with them, but apart from them//

I'm not sure about that. Nobody is suggesting consciousness IS the brain- or mind. We wouldn't dream, if that were the case. But it also isn't "apart" from them- it's produced by them- unlike a wire and electrons.

[naomi24]

Jim, I understood that an electron is an indivisible particle? That it may not be is still open to question, isn't it? Or has that question been resolved? Anyway, if it has, the principle of the suggestion still remains.

[jomifl]

Conciousness is one of the many functions of the brain, the brain can function without conciousness but conciousness does not operate when the brain doesn't function. That is when it is dead.

[jomifl]

^Add 's' where appropriate. Ta :o)

[naomi24]

We're going around in circles. Consciousness is a product of the function of the brain - but I'm not sure it's a function of the brain in its own right.

[nailit]

cant believe this post is still going!!
Thought it was a simple thread, but have enjoyed reading through it and all the answers... Cant pick a best answer because there isnt one.
thanks all who posts here, deeply enjoy all posts here. very interesting.

[jim360]

To answer the question about the electron as honestly as I can, there is no suggestion anywhere currently that it's anything other than a point particle -- and so indivisible. Perhaps, like the atom, probing it at higher energies still will reveal yet more structure, although presumably there has to be a limit somewhere.

That said, the electron is destructible in pair annihilation processes. When an electron meets a positron, the two annihilate and create, say, a photon. This may decay into yet more electrons, but at any rate there was a change from the original electron into a "new" one. In the process of change, much of the information of the original electron is lost (although if you had thousands or millions of such processes you would be able to make some claims about the state the original particle was in, but this is an average (or, alternatively, if you were the one who started the process off in the first place, as happens in particle colliders)).

One of the lessons of modern physics experiments is that complex states have a tendency to last for very little time at all unless they are supported or deliberately held in situ. Whether this applies equally to consciousness or not I don't know, but I suspect that it will mean that consciousness is too dependent on the brain to last for long without it.

Anyway, University Challenge is starting so I will be back later.

[pixie373]

I'm trying to work out if there's a difference, Naomi? The brain produces consciousness - we know that by how we prevent it. Are you questioning how it's produced?

[pixie373]

We can go on forever, nailit ;-)

[naomi24]

Jim, wow! A lot of ifs and buts in there .... so to answer the question honestly your positive claim that the electron is destructible isn’t entirely accurate.

Pixie, no, I’m not questioning how it’s produced.

//I'm trying to work out if there's a difference,//

The point of the exercise.