My philosphy on consciousness

[rocketdodger]

Can you please explain which "first cause" logical fallacies you refer to?

Common sense logic would indicate that if any material object is to be conscious of itself, it would need the “help” of another, external object (a mirror, for example), to relay the information

Why can't an object be self-referential?

I called it a "first cause" fallacy because it seems to me to be like the argument that "it doesn't make sense for something to exist without a cause, so lets add a 'first cause' for everything, and just say 'this first cause doesn't itself need a cause because it is juju special'."

 

[voidx]

You're theory hinges heavily on the conception of the Cartesian Theatre, which has pretty throughly been shown to be incoherent as it relies on a sense of dualism which is also considered rightly to be incoherent.

There is no logical mechanism to connect your non-physical consciousness with the physical brain. This is a weakness of your theory, not a strength in my opinion.

We are rather visual beings. And so we use this analogy when referring to thoughts and consciousness. We think of visualizing things in our "mind" all the time, but we don't not really do this. Its just a vague and conveniant short hand for the brain to take a huge amount of physical sensory information and abstract it in a way in which it can be analyzed.

You imagine a "space" in the brain, and that there must be something there watching that space, watching experience, experiencing experience. This is what you call consciousness.

The problem is that there is no such "space" where experience is displayed to the "central meaner", just as no one claims that there is any sole location for "consciousness" in the brain.

Consciousness is considered to be an amalgamation of brain processes, an emergent property.

You put a lot of causation into consciousness with no real justification aside from, "It must be a conscious decision, what else could it be". Ignorance is not a very convincing arguement. Read some of the books by Daniel Dennet or Douglas Hofstadter for some interesting perspectives. Or talk with Jeff Corey or Mercutio on here regarding behaviourism. Or rather, go look at some of the many previous threads on here discussing consciousness. It will give you a lot to ponder.

 

[rocketdodger]

Read some of the books by Daniel Dennet or Douglas Hofstadter for some interesting perspectives. Or talk with Jeff Corey or Mercutio on here regarding behaviourism. Or rather, go look at some of the many previous threads on here discussing consciousness. It will give you a lot to ponder.

Seconded. "Godel, Escher, and Bach" gives a pretty good treatment of the potential for consciousness to arise in purely physical systems and the Corey/Mercutio duo will make you question all your preconceived notions regarding the subject. Its good stuff.

 

[Xetrov]

You add it as a "fundamental property of the universe".

I'm sorry but this is the argument you are making. If it is a fundamental property then consciousness isn't some product of some configuration of the physical ….. - no, it's some fundamental thing like a quark, photon etc... or some dimension of the universe in which "things" are placed.

Yes you understood my argument well. From my reasoning and looking at the phenomenon of consciousness, I have concluded that there is no way that consciousness can arise from matter/energy. So it has to be (somehow) a fundamental property of the universe. Now you tell me that this just can’t be true, but if you are correct, you should give better reason than just saying that it can’t be true. You should prove my arguments wrong. For example you should proof to me that either I am wrong in stating that consciousness works as a combined observer/observed phenomenon, or that even if this is true, it can all still be attributed to matter/energy in some way. You should proof to me that there is some centre in the brain where all the signals of the senses are merged together (a requirement I stated because of this merged observer/observed property). You should show to me that this centre is somehow located in the brainstem, because as I showed, consciousness can still arise when the rest of one’s brain is temporally deactivated.

Independent? What does that even mean?

Words are easy to string together in meaningless configurations.

True, this is very easy. However the configuration of words I used is hardy meaningless to me and a few other people who actually do agree with me, but that’s beside the point. My task is to try to explain my viewpoint to you by stringing words together so that you can give meaning to them and understand them, and clearly I failed. My apologies. I will try it again, then. Yes, from my conclusion, consciousness is not determined in any way by matter or energy. This means matter and energy have as far as I can tell, no influence on it. That is why I called it “independent”. I did however not delve yet into the most logical and obvious question “But how is this possible at all?”. This is a question that we should indeed pose, but the question in itself does not invalidate my arguments. Maybe there are as yet unforeseen mechanisms though which consciousness and matter/energy relate to each other. As everyone well knows, in the past of human science there have been several discoveries made that were thought to be also pretty much impossible.

By the way, seeing the rather huge amount of replies to my article, and the limited amount of time I can spend here, it might take a while before I can reply to you all. My apologies for this, but I will do my best.

 

[cyborg]

Yes you understood my argument well.

This is not my first time.

From my reasoning and looking at the phenomenon of consciousness, I have concluded that there is no way that consciousness can arise from matter/energy.

I have seen little in your argument as way of justification for that.

Now you tell me that this just can’t be true,

No, I am telling you that this just isn't necessary. Anything could be true.

For example you should proof to me that either I am wrong in stating that consciousness works as a combined observer/observed phenomenon, or that even if this is true, it can all still be attributed to matter/energy in some way.

Ah yes: the "observer/observed" phenomena. Those tricky words again: conjuring up images in the human brain that the mathematics just don't entail.

Please tell me what you think this phenomena consists of.

(ETA: In a more precise way then you have outlined.)

You should proof to me that there is some centre in the brain where all the signals of the senses are merged together (a requirement I stated because of this merged observer/observed property).

Why would I attempt to show you proof of something I think is a nonsense?

You should show to me that this centre is somehow located in the brainstem, because as I showed, consciousness can still arise when the rest of one’s brain is temporally deactivated.

Why the insistence that it must be "in one place" just because you perceive it as if it were? The brain is a large parallel machine of interacting sub-components: I expect information to have to travel from one place to the other. I expect the different bits of it to act independently. I therefore am not at all surprised that "deactivation" of one region still allows "consciousness" to arise because I expect "consciousness" to arise as the sum of various interacting independent parts.

However the configuration of words I used is hardy meaningless to me and a few other people who actually do agree with me, but that’s beside the point.

No, that's entirely the point.

"Consciousness is real".

That may well seem meaningful but how does it relate to the existential? What are the entailments of physicality implied?

Yes, from my conclusion, consciousness is not determined in any way by matter or energy. This means matter and energy have as far as I can tell, no influence on it. That is why I called it “independent”.

Ah: the "consciousness is some floaty thing beyond my physical substrate that is merely touching upon it" argument.

Maybe there are as yet unforeseen mechanisms though which consciousness and matter/energy relate to each other.

Then there is a deterministic relationship.

As everyone well knows, in the past of human science there have been several discoveries made that were thought to be also pretty much impossible.

Please: no rhetoric. Let us concentrate on what is rather than on what was not thought to be, and what we may think could be. Logic is powerful enough to express anything: that is why we need to tame it with an existential frame of reference if we want to use it to explore the reality we find ourselves in.

 

[Xetrov]

Are you sure you read the threads on consciousness here?

Hiya, welcome to the forum!

Thank you so much for the welcome! And yes I did read those posts, it was actually the 1st thing I did when I found this forum, because the topic interest me deeply. I think you might be asking me this question because in your opinion, if I have read them all, why do I still have such an awkward point of view? Well let’s just say that I am different, ok? I was and am not convinced by all the arguments I saw there that there is no way that my idea can be correct.

To begin with, there is no electric field in the brain. There is an electrochemical potential across the neuron cell boundary caused by the pretense of ions of sodium, calcium, potassium, etc. . . . When a neuron 'fires' the channels in the cell membrane open releasing the ions inside and allowing some of the ions outside in. this causes the electro chemical osmotic pressure to stabilize. The neuron goes from charged to more neutral. This is not how a neuron signals to the neuron next to it. This is how the neuron signals to itself that the cell should release its neuro transmitter.

The release of the neurotransmitter and the binding of the neurotransmitter to the postsynaptic receptor is how signals are carried in the brain. They are not carried by an electric field.

You mean that signals in the brain are not carried by electrons, but by neurotransmitters, that work because of an electric potential. Actually I think I have heard of this before, and I have to admit I am curious. So I would like to ask you, could you direct me to a source (scientific article or so) that explains this? I would love to read more.

However, although I do agree on your idea, you are incorrect to state that there is no electric field connected with our brains. You already said that there is an electrochemical potential, and that “The neuron goes from charged to more neutral”. This obviously means there is electrical activity in the brain, which automatically means the presence of an electric field. The majority of scientific research also points into this direction, for example brainwaves have been measured, which is in fact the same as the electric field. To show that I am not merely ranting, I will show you some recent scientific research about this topic (again please fill in the dots yourself since I am not allowed to fully paste links yet):

www springerlink com/content/90223487560w7562/
www springerlink com/content/k621374617717752/
www3 interscience wiley com/cgi-bin/abstract/109711620/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Finally I would like to point out that I never claimed that signals are carried by the electric field in the brain in the first place. I merely stated that there is such a field present. However, since most people here already agree that this field is highly unlikely to be the source of consciousness, this argument is actually no longer of much value in the current discussion.

By the way, that's a quick reply again Cyborg . I will read it in detail later, and reply tomorrow or so, because for today my forum activities come to an end.

 

[Dancing David]

snip

For example you should proof to me that either I am wrong in stating that consciousness works as a combined observer/observed phenomenon, or that even if this is true, it can all still be attributed to matter/energy in some way. You should proof to me that there is some centre in the brain where all the signals of the senses are merged together (a requirement I stated because of this merged observer/observed property). You should show to me that this centre is somehow located in the brainstem, because as I showed, consciousness can still arise when the rest of one’s brain is temporally deactivated.
snip



Yes, from my conclusion, consciousness is not determined in any way by matter or energy. This means matter and energy have as far as I can tell, no influence on it. That is why I called it “independent”.

snip

Just one pointes of order here, in a critical thought train there are a number of things we usually like to consider.

1. The evidence that supports your ideas.

2. The reasoning behind the ideas and evidence.

3. Confounding factors that also might explain the observed phenomena

4. Other paths to reason the observation

As far as the 'observer/observed phenomena' I suggest you study up on sensation and perception before we even go there. And maybe a general over view of neurobiology. There are about a hundred thousand different processes that get described as 'consciousness'. So first off we need to go to the root of how you want to define the 'observer' and 'observed'. Then we can get down to the basis of what evidence leads you to conclusions based upon those definitions.



then Wow! we can talk about this :


"Yes, from my conclusion, consciousness is not determined in any way by matter or energy."

What evidence do you have that would lead you to that conclusion? If the brain as not the source of consciousness where would it be? And why would we get drunk and pass out?

Please don't feel too overwhelmed, this is a frequent topic on the forum and one that is usually well participated in.

Arguments that have been already discussed in the past (to name a few)

1. Neo Platonism (beauty seen by separate observers separate in time)

2. Kant and the "It is impossible for a thought to think about itself"

3. The brain as TV receiver for consciousness.

4. The inherent flaws of dualism.

5. The irreducible nature of 'qualia'.

So please be patient with us and be prepared for a lot of discussion.

 

[Dancing David]

Thank you so much for the welcome! And yes I did read those posts, it was actually the 1st thing I did when I found this forum, because the topic interest me deeply. I think you might be asking me this question because in your opinion, if I have read them all, why do I still have such an awkward point of view? Well let’s just say that I am different, ok? I was and am not convinced by all the arguments I saw there that there is no way that my idea can be correct.

I just asked because then you can be better prepared for the vast amount of discussion that is likely to occur. If we have a common basis for communication then the signals will be clearer. Much of the discussion on the forum revolves exactly around the definition of terms.

So , cool! there will be communication.

You mean that signals in the brain are not carried by electrons, but by neurotransmitters, that work because of an electric potential. Actually I think I have heard of this before, and I have to admit I am curious. So I would like to ask you, could you direct me to a source (scientific article or so) that explains this? I would love to read more.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=neurotransmission&spell=1

and

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neuron+polarization&btnG=Search

However, although I do agree on your idea, you are incorrect to state that there is no electric field connected with our brains. You already said that there is an electrochemical potential, and that “The neuron goes from charged to more neutral”. This obviously means there is electrical activity in the brain, which automatically means the presence of an electric field.

Yes and no, um, the universe is composed of electrically charged thingamabobs and so yes there are universally going to be electric fields. otherwise we could not sit on chairs or digest food.

The majority of scientific research also points into this direction, for example brainwaves have been measured, which is in fact the same as the electric field.

Yes absolutely the question then becomes what does the signals mean, there is a difference between the magnetic eclectic field in a transformer on a power line and the electro magnetic fields on a computer hard drive.
In one there is the transmission of 'information' in the other there is not.

To show that I am not merely ranting, I will show you some recent scientific research about this topic (again please fill in the dots yourself since I am not allowed to fully paste links yet):

www springerlink com/content/90223487560w7562/
www springerlink com/content/k621374617717752/
www3 interscience wiley com/cgi-bin/abstract/109711620/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Finally I would like to point out that I never claimed that signals are carried by the electric field in the brain in the first place. I merely stated that there is such a field present. However, since most people here already agree that this field is highly unlikely to be the source of consciousness, this argument is actually no longer of much value in the current discussion.

Which was my point solely in that area.

the wave of depolarization that travels the axon is biochemical in nature, it has a very small electric potential but is mainly chemical in nature.

I was responding to this:

"This at least should have some noticeable effect on consciousness if the idea I am investigating here is correct, since the properties of the electric field in the brain change dramatically. But there seems to be no effect at all, even if this field is a thousand times stronger than the one in the brain!"

and would just counter that 500 micrograms of LSD is enough to create a substantial change in brain activity.

So I thought you were stating :

Consciousness is associated with magnetic fields
magnetic fields are not causing changes in consciousness
therefore
consciousness is immaterial.

 

[Xetrov]

Uh, I am sorry but since there is such an extremely overwhelming amount of repelies and such a limited time I can spend here, I have to give in for now. I might read all your arguments later again and look at it, and learn from it, so thanks all for your time, but I am going to quit for now. Let's just conclude that sofar, me and the majority here on the forum disagree. That's ok, isnt it? ... I might come back later and give a reply, or I might not. I'll just see. It has been an interesting experience anyway for me. Oh, and one more thing, please don't feel the need to give me a kick in the back now like "Told you, he'd be gone soon".... no need for that, ok? Thanks anyway and a good day to you all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Some might argue that consciousness is an illusion. Basically this would come down to the idea that thought is really all there is.

Yes and no. An illusion is something that is real, but is not what it appears to be.

But humans can be self-aware, they can be conscious of consciousness.

Sure.

Doing so can be done without thought, for example you can just realise that you are present (for example during meditation).

That is thought.

Also, if thought is all there is, then who is witnessing the thoughts?

Your thoughts.

Obviously, we are conscious of thought, so consciousness is not an illusion.

That does not follow.

Others have already mentioned Godel, Escher, Bach, which is a superb introduction to a broad range of topics surrounding the nature of consciousness. What you are getting at here is known in computer programming as reflection, and is nothing magical.

To me, the most interesting aspect about consciousness is that it has the ability to be self-conscious.

This is interesting, yes, but you have to understand that computers can do this too.

Common sense logic would indicate that if any material object is to be conscious of itself, it would need the “help” of another, external object (a mirror, for example), to relay the information.

Except that, in an appropriate configuration, digital logic circuits can examine and change their own properties.

Most scientists would consider the idea that consciousness arises from the electric field in our brain to be at least a very good starting point in explaining it’s origin.

Not the ones who know anything about the subject. Consciousness arises from the electrochemical interaction of an immense number of neurons. The gross electric field of the brain can be used to monitor activity but doesn't signify in the activity itself.

There are however several arguments against this idea. A very strong one would be that consciousness seems to be totally unaffected by any changes in the electric field of the brain, caused by either internal or external influences.

No. This is completely wrong. You can of course manipulate sensory, motor, and cognitive function by direct electrical stimulation - implanted electrodes. You can also do this using transcranical magnetic stimulation.

And this is not because the brain is shielded from these fields, otherwise we could never measure brainwaves.

The brain is shielded from these fields, both by the skull, and by distance, because we usually try not to expose our heads to intense electric or magnetic fields.

Another argument is related to people with reduced brain size. Some people have been known to have 50% or even less brain matter*, and are still very conscious.

Yes. We call these "children".

 

[Ladewig]

Do you believe that consciousness survives after death?


ETA: I just want to echo Dancing David's point that there are scores of drugs that can change one's consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, and one other thing. The simplest, or at least briefest, refutation of the notion if an immaterial source of consciousness is known as Yahzi's Bat. It's a blunt version of Occam's Razor, and works something like this:

Philosopher A: ... and therefore it is impossible for consciousness to have a material source.
Philosopher B strikes Philosopher A over the head with a bat.

Think about that.

 

[PixyMisa]

And as Dancing David and Ladewig suggest, if you're not into blunt head trauma, you can get similar effects with a couple of bottles of wine.

 

[rocketdodger]

Uh, I am sorry but since there is such an extremely overwhelming amount of repelies and such a limited time I can spend here, I have to give in for now. I might read all your arguments later again and look at it, and learn from it, so thanks all for your time, but I am going to quit for now. Let's just conclude that sofar, me and the majority here on the forum disagree. That's ok, isnt it? ... I might come back later and give a reply, or I might not. I'll just see. It has been an interesting experience anyway for me. Oh, and one more thing, please don't feel the need to give me a kick in the back now like "Told you, he'd be gone soon".... no need for that, ok? Thanks anyway and a good day to you all.

Off to try the waters in another forum..

Personally, I prefer forums where people disagree with me. At least then I feel like I might learn something.

 

[Xetrov]

Off to try the waters in another forum..

Personally, I prefer forums where people disagree with me. At least then I feel like I might learn something.

You are so wrong. If you really knew me, you would be very ashamed. In your utter arrogance to judge me, you project all kinds of negative ideas onto me, that hold no truth whatsoever. I have so totally had it with this. I was thinking of hanging around here but this just closes the door for me.

 

[cyborg]

How pointless.

 

[rocketdodger]

You are so wrong. If you really knew me, you would be very ashamed. In your utter arrogance to judge me, you project all kinds of negative ideas onto me, that hold no truth whatsoever. I have so totally had it with this. I was thinking of hanging around here but this just closes the door for me.

Well I am glad I could provide you with a "mean evil nasty jerk" persona, thereby giving your a reason to legitimize your retreat.

If you ever want to actually discuss your ideas, instead of just looking for kudos, feel free to come back.

 

[Xetrov]

Rocketdodger, what you implied about me was not right. I am not off to other forums. I did learn from this discussion. I am not going to hide because I am afraid to discuss, merely because I feel extremely overwhelmed by the enormous amount of replies, that are so many that I can never even reply to all of them already, and each time I reply, even more replies are added. That was why I decided to quit for now, and I also explained as much. Then you started to say things about me that were not true. But never mind, its ok.

 

[rocketdodger]

Thats all good and dandy, but I still find this sentence of yours to be a little strange:

Oh, and one more thing, please don't feel the need to give me a kick in the back now like "Told you, he'd be gone soon".... no need for that, ok?

That seems like the kind of thing only someone with experience in these matters would say.

If I am wrong then I apologize. We just get a LOT of hit-and-run, drive by, guerilla tactic crazy people that post here then run when they figure out how intelligent some of the peeps on this forum actually are. Your behavior just "fits the description," so to speak, but again, if I am wrong, then really, I apologize.

 

[TuftedPuffin]

I have no idea, I just know that many people refer to consciousness in a different way than I do, so I first of all set out to give my definition of it.

So is your definition of consciousness based on what you think it is? Because that too is under some level of objective measurability.

That is an interesting thought, one which I also have been pondering on. But this would mean there needs to be at least two separate structures in the brain for this to work (an “eye” and a “mirror”) If there are two separate structures, there is no way we can have an integrated whole of observer and observed into one. I said this is a requirement because obviously we can be self-aware, which means that we are at the same time observer and observed. Also this would mean there needs to be a place in the brain where all the signals of all the senses are merged together (as everything comes together in consciousness), and as far as I know there is no such place (if there is, please let me know). We also have to keep in mind that the ability of some people to remain conscious during deep delta brainwave activity suggests that this place in the brain where all the signals are merged together, if it exists, needs to be part of the brainstem, else we would not be able to remain conscious during this stage, since the brainstem is then the only non-dormant part of the brain.

What about a computer that records its own activities? There's not necessarily a physical place that happens in. Beyond this, check out Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained. He gives a rather good explanation of how consciousness can and indeed must exist without a central area that everything is always directed to.

I am going to look into that and see if I can find some official references. The only thing so far I can say is that I have experienced something similar to this myself (staying conscious during deep sleep), but of course this is no evidence.

How do you know you're in deep sleep without being unconscious? Were you connected to a machine?

Yes people with different brain (sizes) think differently. But that is beside the point, the point is, are they conscious or not? Evidence shows they are (just wait I’ll post a few links). As far as I am concerned, consciousness does not come in degrees, it is there fully or it is there not at all. What does come in degrees however is what we can be conscious of. What I also wonder is how can consciousness be “interactions between neurons”, aren’t neurons merely switches to relay electrical signals? How are they ever going to produce consciousness? I think you also need to keep in mind again that for consciousness to arise you also need an integrated signal of all the senses together, and I don’t think that’s a quality reported from neurons, unless I am mistaken. In any case I would gladly look at any theories supporting this idea, where can I get a better look at them?

You missed my point about brains. If consciousness is indeed an all-or-nothing property, then people shouldn't have less consciousness when they have less of their brain, they should simply stop being conscious at a certain minimum, which I think it what is generally observed.

As for neurons, I'm not saying that individual neurons or groups of them carry consciousness, I'm saying that consciousness, like a computer program, can exist in the patterns of firings of neurons. It's a property of the program, not a property of the substrate. Again, see Dennet's book if you get the chance.