What Is Consciousness?

[Fats_Tuesday]

Re: Mr Bean, Looking In To A Shop Window, Trying To Comb The

Why life, anyway? Why do simple forms of matter and energy seem to 'struggle' into contortions of increasing size and organisational complexity, apparently defying the (alleged) laws of Thermodynamics? Feel free to argue about the actual engines of life and evolution, elsewhere.

I think you're referring here to the second law of thermodynamics which states that the entropy in a closed system will descend from order to disorder over time. This really is referring to temperature and molecular behaviour but if even if we apply it to life it falls down as life isn't a closed system. It relies on energy input from the sun (or other energy sources in rare circumstances).

If the sun went out, our genetic and memetic complexity would probably rather rapidly revert to a state of disorder!

 

[Anonymous]

But isn't our galaxy a closed system?

I know what the other guy meant though. It does seem bizarre that we aren't all a big planet of conscious amoeba's, don't you think?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

But isn't our galaxy a closed system?

I know what the other guy meant though. It does seem bizarre that we aren't all a big planet of conscious amoeba's, don't you think?

You can still get pockets of complexity like life; eddies, if you like. In fact, if you think about it, galaxies themselves are pockets of complexity in the universe. All it's really saying is that eventually, everything will kind of average out and become less complex, when it comes to temperature. This may of course (Hubble Constant depending) eventually happen to the whole universe if we don't get a big crunch.

I think that it all seems wierd and applying science to these things doesn't reduce their wonder.

 

[Anonymous]

And Why Suns? Or, Galaxies? Far too complicated. Why Not Nic

And of course the whole point of an illusion is that it presupposes an observer.

Bootstrapping consciousness into a feedback loop of

...illusion-consciousness-illusion-consciousness-illusion...

creates tremendous problems of coherence, set against the white noise created by such 'feedback circuits.' How would you ever get any useful information out of the howl and pretty but meaningless patterns?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Re: And Why Suns? Or, Galaxies? Far too complicated. Why Not

And of course the whole point of an illusion is that it presupposes an observer.

Bootstrapping consciousness into a feedback loop of

...illusion-consciousness-illusion-consciousness-illusion...

creates tremendous problems of coherence, set against the white noise created by such 'feedback circuits.' How would you ever get any useful information out of the howl and pretty but meaningless patterns?

I think you have to be prepared for the fact that you might not find meaning in something.

You imply that the consciousness is you. Why does the consciousness have to be the observer? There are other brain processes which could experience the illusion. When you dream, are you conscious in a normal way? No, but you still observe things.

This is critical - the hypothesis is saying that consciousness is an illusion experienced by the brain, not by consciousness itself. The former is not a loop, the latter would be. To deal with it you have to take a step outside the supposition that you are your consciousness - it's just a part of what makes up the total you.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: And Why Suns? Or, Galaxies? Far too complicated. Why

To deal with it you have to take a step outside the supposition that you are your consciousness - it's just a part of what makes up the total you.

To know it, you would have to be conscious.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Re: Re: Re: And Why Suns? Or, Galaxies? Far too complicated.

To know it, you would have to be conscious.

So, define "consciousness" then in an unambiguous way.

If you can't then you should be starting to see the problem with stating it as a neccessity for the understanding. It may be taking the credit for other brain functions, according to this theory.

Even the dictionary definition given earlier by Garrick was ambiguous.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Re: Re: And Why Suns? Or, Galaxies? Far too complica

So, define "consciousness" then in an unambiguous way.

My point is much simpler.

Without 'consciousness' none of this would be possible. Nothing in all human experience would have any 'meaning.'

As has been mentioned in other posts, everything in human experience, is mediated through our senses, mind and consciousness. It is all a 'virtual experience.' On that level it is all an 'illusion.'

But, so what? Nothing scientists can say will really affect the 'qualatative' nature of our 'perceived' reality.

They can only deal with 'quantifiable' phenomena. That is the nature of the beast.

And somewhere, outside all human perception and knowledge exists the 'really real.' And we can attempt better and better approximations and model to our hearts content, but we'll still only be building better lies.

Consciousness 'feels' real, it's a gut instinct thing, and that's the best we've got to go on, whatever Dr Susan Blackmore thinks. Because, everything else is also an illusion, to us. Even data.

Can the scientists 'really' prove that there's no consciousness beyond an illusion created by sub-processes in the brain? No.

They are intrinsically confined and involved within the very system they are attempting to examine.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Yes, Androman. I agree with everything you say there. Consciousness does give meaning to human existence where there may be none without it.

As I have stated, if it's a religion, then I am a fully signed up member and proud of it.

That still doesn't mean, though that we can't examine something of the nature of the conscious mind.

If we discover it's based on an illusion it doesn't lose its value to us as a species. I think for the most part it adds a great deal of quality of life to existence.

Also, even if the illusion theory is poved true, the consciousness has become more than the sum of its parts. Check out the book I mentioned earlier which gives evidence that the conscious mind can physically remap the brain (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060393556/026-9001060-4544409)

The Amazon synopsis reads:

The greatest scientific advances are never the result of strict adherence to convention. Often it takes an innovative maverick, someone willing to see things differently while possessing the determination and intelligence to substantiate his challenges to conventional wisdom. Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D., a leading neuroscientist and Research Professor of Psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, an international authority on brain diseases and author of the definitive work on obsessive compulsive disorder, Brain Lock, has defied convention again in his new book, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. The Mind and the Brain, written with Sharon Begley, formerly Newsweek's senior science writer and now science columnist for The Wall Street Journal, is a work as profound as it is provocative: a book that gives substantial proof that - contrary to popular scientific belief - the entity we commonly call "the mind" has the power to change the makeup of the physical brain. For years, there has been a division between the assumptions of hard science 'which contended that the brain functioned essentially as a machine' and our daily human experience, which seems to suggest that "the mind" is something different from the physical brain, a force we are capable of harnessing for our benefit. This was a conflict that always bothered Jeffrey Schwartz, who was responsible for the revolutionary Four Steps therapy that has helped patients around the world battle the effects of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). His therapy was grounded in cognitive-behavioural principles, which drew on a patient's own awareness of his state of mind, and involved the patient directly in his own therapy. Combining the revelations of more than two decades of research with a progressive approach influenced by the Buddhist principle of "mindful awareness," Schwartz's therapy was wildly successful but it also opened a door into a much more significant revelation: while reviewing his patients' brain scans, Schwartz discovered that their self-directed therapy was actually changing the wiring of their brains. This major discovery is at the core of The Mind and the Brain: that through the power of thought, by focusing attention, human beings can use their own minds to change their brains. The scientific implications of this discovery are manifold: victims of stroke may be able to use the discovery to help reassume command of their bodies and lives, and psychiatrists treating patients with mental disorders may be able to decrease their patients' reliance on psychiatric drugs. As a therapeutic advance, then, The Mind and the Brain offers a paradigm shift that promises new treatments for conditions from dyslexia to depression. Schwartz's discovery may amount to the most conclusive scientific evidence to date of the existence of free will 'that is, the power of human beings to take an active role in the choices they make. In the book Schwartz points accusingly at the "moral vacuum" created by the old, materialistic worldview and raises questions of personal responsibility in a new light. Infused with the insatiable curiosity of a scientific trailblazer and the passion of a crusader, The Mind and the Brain is a daring and groundbreaking work of research and vision - one whose conclusions are sure to make waves within the scientific community, and to affect profoundly the human race's understanding of itself.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, Androman. I agree with everything you say there. Consciousness does give meaning to human existence where there may be none without it.

As I have stated, if it's a religion, then I am a fully signed up member and proud of it.

That still doesn't mean, though that we can't examine something of the nature of the conscious mind.

If we discover it's based on an illusion it doesn't lose its value to us as a species. I think for the most part it adds a great deal of quality of life to existence.

I'm saying that, for us humans, everything is an illusion and that we can not definitively discover the nature of consciousness.

Because, it is a qualative and not quantative state. We can guess, but we cannot 'know.'

From http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm :
In the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) Kant had reworked the traditional distinction between the immanent (within the world) and the transcendent (outside the world) by distinguishing between phenomena and things-in-themselves. "Phenomena" are how it is that objects appear in our own conscious minds. We do not have access to the world outside of the experiences we enjoy through our own consciousness, and Kant believed that consciousness itself, or the possibility of conscious experience, imposes certain conditions on the manner in which phenomenal objects appear to us. Among those conditions are the forms of space and time and the abstract forms of connections between events and objects such as the concept of substance and the relation between cause and effect.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Yes, but there are different levels of illusion. Our sensory map of the world is obviously an illusion of sorts but the observed phenomena can be tested using the scientific method, removing the subjectivity.

This method can be just as easily applied to consciousness and you simply stating that it can't doesn't really hold water for me.

Just look at the experiments that have already been done and their results. A lot of progress is being made in this area. You just seem to be ignoring the experimental evidence that already exists and I'm not sure I understand why.

 

[Anonymous]

Just look at the experiments that have already been done and their results. A lot of progress is being made in this area. You just seem to be ignoring the experimental evidence that already exists and I'm not sure I understand why.

You can test the machinery, certainly. You can remove components of a transistor radio, one by one, until it stops working. That only means it's stopped receiving, amplifying, or both. So?

Knowing about radio and how it works still leaves the tricky problem of the existence of the listener.

From Dr Susan Blackmore's Article:
Admitting that it’s all an illusion does not solve the problem of consciousness but changes it completely. Instead of asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must ask how the grand illusion gets constructed. This will prove no easy task, but unlike solving the Hard Problem it may at least be possible.

How long before we get round to the listener?

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

You can test the machinery, certainly. You can remove components of a transistor radio, one by one, until it stops working. That only means it's stopped receiving, amplifying, or both. So?

Knowing about radio and how it works still leaves the tricky problem of the existence of the listener.How long before we get round to the listener?

I'm really not sure what you mean by getting round to the listener. I keep coming back to this but the listener is not simply your conscious self. It's a whole load of other brain (and body for that matter) processes as well. Why is the existence of this listener a problem? Bear in mind, I don't think a thing has to have a purpose to exist. Some things just exist.

We may be able to work out how consciousness works, how and why it arose and far more information about it through science. We may make massive breakthroughs in this in future and to say we simply won't just because we don't fully understand it now doesn't seem to be learning the lessons of the past when it comes to knocking science.

Why needlessly introduce mysticism into the process? They used to explain many things we now understand in great detail by saying "God did it" and I'm seeing big parallels in many peoples' views of consciousness.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jobbo
Susan Blackmore and others postulate that consciousness is a very powerful illusion; kind of an uber-meme or super-religion, lagging slightly behind real-time events and constructing an effectively fictitious version of those events at the same time as convincing itself of its own over-riding power.

'uber-meme, 'super religion'Could these be the first indications of an subjective agenda?

A 'meme' is supposed to be an ' unit of cultural information,' 'the cultural equivalent of a gene.' Is that a good definition of consciousness?

A 'super-religion,' could be a 'belief in a superhuman controlling power' that's more like it. But, something needs to do the believing. A religion doesn't believe independently of its adherents.

I know I exist. The I that exists is sitting typing into a computer. That I is me.

Jobbo, and Dr Susan Blackmore, seem to be saying that that I is an illusion. If I were not thinking about being I, that I would cease to exist. I being merely a temporary illusion.

From the Dr Susan Blackmore Article:
It sounds bizarre, but try to catch yourself not being conscious. More than a hundred years ago the psychologist William James likened introspective analysis to “trying to turn up the gas quickly enough to see how the darkness looks." The modern equivalent is looking in the fridge to see whether the light is always on. However quickly you open the door, you can never catch it out. The same is true of consciousness. Whenever you ask yourself, “Am I conscious now?” you always are.

But perhaps there is only something there when you ask. Maybe each time you probe, a retrospective story is concocted about what was in the stream of consciousness a moment before, together with a “self” who was apparently experiencing it. Of course there was neither a conscious self nor a stream, but it now seems as though there was.

Yeah, Dr Susan and try to catch the back of your neck in a mirror by turning round real quick. Perhaps the back of your neck is only constructed on a 'just in time' 'need to see' basis, too?

For the sake of argument say I live in an ultra modern house. Everything is networked and automated and blue toothed through the computer. I hardly have to do anything, I'm out of the house loads, but with a simple cellphone call I can make sure a meal and everything else I require is waiting for me when I get home.

I'm delayed in a traffic jam, and a burglar breaks in. In my absence, everything in the house is being carried out as planned. To all intents and purposes it would appear that there was no 'I' required.

Holistically, I can confidently say I exist. Jobbo and Dr Susan Blackmore, apparently, cannot say that they exist. Perhaps, they don't want to.

Originally posted by Jobbo:
I keep coming back to this but the listener is not simply your conscious self. It's a whole load of other brain (and body for that matter) processes as well.
....

Why needlessly introduce mysticism into the process? They used to explain many things we now understand in great detail by saying "God did it" and I'm seeing big parallels in many peoples' views of consciousness.

I'm saying, I am. Whatever 'I' is, that I usually manifests when I is conscious. The fact there are different levels to being and that full conscious awareness is only a part of I doesn't worry me. Or, that 'I' also rely on deeper processes to be able to function, and do a variety of tasks, on different levels of awareness. But, although the point of focus may flicker and shift, I am. I know that 99.99% of the time other people are also aware of their own existence. Even if it's a barely conscious awareness.

If you think that's some sort of crazy, mystical belief, fair enough.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jobbo
... kind of an uber-meme...

In fairness to this idea, I take it from what Jobbo's suggesting, that the necessary ideas to make up the conscious self are transferred as discrete units from period to period of our being often by background processes.

I suppose one could see these memes as sub-units of the 'uber-meme' of our conscious self, rather like the spinning plates in a jugglers act. The whole act being the 'illusion' of consciousness.

My point is that in order for the plates to be kept in motion there has to be a juggler.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Androman, I don't see that your plate spinning analogy works. Also, most of what you describe seems to describe self-awareness - I would separate that from consciousness as it is something which is clearly defined. As mentioned in my earlier posts, many higher animals are self-aware but are they conscious?

I can clearly see that the consciousness is gradually built over the course of your life and even radically altered by certain events. Again, for me, this just adds weight to the illusion argument.

I am very definitely different in terms of consciousness from the person I was even 10 years ago.

 

[Anonymous]

I am very definitely different in terms of consciousness from the person I was even 10 years ago.

I suspect that is quite a different sort of 'consciousness.' Dr Blackmore quite specifically states, "Maybe each time you probe, a retrospective story is concocted about what was in the stream of consciousness a moment before, together with a “self” who was apparently experiencing it. Of course there was neither a conscious self nor a stream, but it now seems as though there was."

These both being constructed on a 'just in time, need to be aware' principle. I'd like to know what mechanism Dr B. might suggest that could employ this logistical method? It seems to be too much like the back of Mr Bean's neck and the shop window to pass up, without comment.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

I suspect that is quite a different sort of 'consciousness.' Dr Blackmore quite specifically states, "Maybe each time you probe, a retrospective story is concocted about what was in the stream of consciousness a moment before, together with a “self” who was apparently experiencing it. Of course there was neither a conscious self nor a stream, but it now seems as though there was."

These both being constructed on a 'just in time, need to be aware' principle. I'd like to know what mechanism Dr B. might suggest that could employ this logistical method? It seems to be too much like the back of Mr Bean's neck and the shop window to pass up, without comment.

Susan Blackmore is simply proposing a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon of the consciousness claiming to have done things after the event. She is attempting to posit a theory to explain the observed facts. You seem to be ignoring those experiments that bring in to question your view of consciousness.

I have to admit to feeling violently opposed to these ideas when I first experienced them as they seemed to go against the very grain of my being but I now think the theory could be correct without devaluing consciousness (as I described in my previous posts).

Bear in mind also, she is not saying this IS the way things are happening, she is simply exploring the possibilities.

 

[Anonymous]

You seem to be ignoring those experiments that bring in to question your view of consciousness.

No. I'm simply saying that they really have very little to say on the nature of being, self, or consciousness.

You may believe that they have explained everything to your satisfaction. I simply believe they explain something of the mechanics of perception.

No need to be annoyed at my wilful obtuseness, in the face of the wonders of science, that's why I'm a Fortean and reserve the right to make my own interpretations and draw my own conclusions from the experimental results.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

No. I'm simply saying that they really have very little to say on the nature of being, self, or consciousness.

You may believe that they have explained everything to your satisfaction. I simply believe they explain something of the mechanics of perception.

I don't believe they've explained everything - why do people keep accusing me of this? I believe they've proposed some interesting ideas to explain some startling phenomena.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe there's a whole lot more to discover in this area and won't resort to mysticism to explain consciousness (or anything else for that matter). If we don't know something I'll say simply "we don't know it". I won't say "we'll never know it". That's a position that's been proved folly countless times.

 

[Anonymous]

Consciousness: is what lets you know you have a hangover.

 

[Anonymous]

I won't say "we'll never know it". That's a position that's been proved folly countless times.

Some things can not be known.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Some things can not be known.

I don't think that position can be reasonably defended. All I would say is "Some things may never be known and we cannot say which things they are".

"Space travel is utter bilge."
Richard Woolley (U.K. Astronomer Royal)
(In 1956, one year before Sputnik)

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think that position can be reasonably defended. All I would say is "Some things may never be known and we cannot say which things they are".

"Space travel is utter bilge."
Richard Woolley (U.K. Astronomer Royal)
(In 1956, one year before Sputnik)

To take a purely scientific example: e.g. The speed and position of a sub-atomic particle.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

To take a purely scientific example: e.g. The speed and position of a sub-atomic particle.

Almost, but not quite. Both can be known independently and ithat theory is more than a statement of simple ignorance. It's supported by evidence; oh, much like some theories on consciousness.

 

[Anonymous]

Almost, but not quite. Both can be known independently and ithat theory is more than a statement of simple ignorance. It's supported by evidence; oh, much like some theories on consciousness.

Perhaps you could clarify your statement? Is it not the case that the speed, or the position, can be measured, but not both. At least not at the same time. Since the process of measuring speed, or position alters the conditions of the experiment.

Or, more correctly, "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is determined." Isn't that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Has it been proved to be wrong? Perhaps you know better?
...

Or, perhaps I could logically bamboozle you with Gödel's Uncompleteness theorem and Alan Turing?

From:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/wpabstract/199601001
SFI Working Paper Abstract, 1996
Title: The Outer Limits: In Search of the “Unknowable” in Science
Author(s): John L. Casti
Files: [No electronic files available.]
Paper #: 96-01-001
Logical Barriers in Science

To anyone infected with the idea that the human mind is unlimited in its capacity to answer questions about natural and human affairs, a tour of twentieth-century science must be quite a depressing experience. Many of the deepest and most well-chronicled results of science in this century have been statements about what “cannot” be done and what “cannot” be known. Probably the most famous limitative result of this kind is Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which tells us that no system of deductive inference is capable of answering all questions about numbers that can be stated using the language of the system. In short, every sufficiently powerful, consistent logical system is incomplete. A few years later, Alan Turing proved an equivalent assertion about computer programs, which states that there is no systematic way of testing a program and its data to say whether or not the program will ever halt when processing that data. More recently, Gregory Chaitin has looked at Gödel’s notion of provability from an information-theoretic perspective, finding explicit examples of simple arithmetic propositions whose truth or falsity will never be known by following the deductive rules of any system of logical inference. Essentially, what Chaitin’s results show is that such mathematical questions are simply too complex for us.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to address the "meaning" of consciousness here, just something of its nature. I don't personally follow the human tendency to look for meaning in everything - some things just happen. e.g. gravity exists and we can study its nature but can we realistically study its meaning?

Perhaps gravity itself, is just an illusion. I certainly know of geographical anomalies where gravity seems to work in reverse, e.g. 'The Electric Brae' in Ayrshire, Scotland. . Where cars and even water seem to run unaided up hill.

It's widely acknowledged to be an illusion. So, if that's an illusion, then by the logic of your argument, we must consider the intriguing possibility that all apparent examples of the laws and effects of gravity may also be illusion.

After you with the window ledge.

 

[Cavynaut]

'Is it concrete all around, or is it in my head?'

(All The Young Dudes - David Bowie)

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Perhaps you could clarify your statement? Is it not the case that the speed, or the position, can be measured, but not both. At least not at the same time. Since the process of measuring speed, or position alters the conditions of the experiment.

Or, more correctly, "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is determined." Isn't that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Has it been proved to be wrong? Perhaps you know better?
...

Well, to clarify, it was discovered using the scientific method and supported by evidence. It is a statment of knowledge rather than a statement of ignorance.

When you or others say "we will never understand consciousness" it is a simple statement of wilful ignorance with no supporting evidence.

The two stances are substantially different.

 

[Fats_Tuesday]

Perhaps gravity itself, is just an illusion. I certainly know of geographical anomalies where gravity seems to work in reverse, e.g. 'The Electric Brae' in Ayrshire, Scotland. . Where cars and even water seem to run unaided up hill.

It's widely acknowledged to be an illusion. So, if that's an illusion, then by the logic of your argument, we must consider the intriguing possibility that all apparent examples of the laws and effects of gravity may also be illusion.

After you with the window ledge.

... and still you fail to account in any way for the actual evidence supporting consciousness as an illusion. If you think it's wrong, you have to account somehow for the observed phenomena.

Gravity itself still works normally at the electric brae and this can be measured. Your statement is not analogous with anything I've said.