My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[!Kaggen]

I have a definition of consciousness. It's something we can observe, measure, and construct, and it accounts for all related observations.

This is not a definition your just calling consciousness "something" then saying what you can do with this "something".

That measure part is interesting though. What is it about "something" that you can measure?

 

[!Kaggen]

So, what have you got?

conscious- aware of ones thoughts

 

[PixyMisa]

I never said you could describe a house perfectly from studying its bricks.
I pointed out that you can say something about a house if you know something about its bricks as apposed to nothing which is what Joe is saying.
You are making the same false assumptions as others about my position.

No, I'm just saying you're asking the wrong question.

Just because I am asking specific questions about the number of components with emergent properties does not imply I am saying it only takes x components to get an emergent property and nothing else.

Okay, so you do know what necessary but not sufficient means?

It means that we may be able to identify one factor which may help us understand emergence.

No. It's still the wrong question.

If you have reasons to believe that the number of brain cells make no difference to the emergence of consciousness, I am interested in knowing about evidence which supports this conclusion.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing. A single neuron can process information. A single neuron can reference itself.

David attempted a model here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5289005#post5289005 using 4 cells.

Yes. You could also do it with two, and plausibly with one.

This is an attempt to answer the question based on a very basic definition of consciousness, but it is a start and as he pointed out reveals how important it is to first define consciousness before we can answer even this basic question about it.

You need to first define consciousness before asking the question, which is one of a number of reasons why it is the wrong question.

In the meantime the question remains and you are welcome to assume what you like as to why I am asking this question or you can deal with it honestly.

You're still asking the wrong question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ahh some sentences.
So this information you process when you think, where does it come from?

I've already explained the neuroscience model. Information comes in via sensory inputs, goes to the CNS via afferent fibers; in the CNS interneurons (often organized into very complex structures) process the information; "commands" go from the CNS via efferent neurons to the striated muscles for voluntary movement.

So as much as you like to think "Where does it come from?" is an unanswered question, you're wrong.

But you can continue to ignore what neuroscience has to say about consciousness and pretend it's a subject where vapid New Agey pronouncements are just as valid as science.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is not a definition your just calling consciousness "something" then saying what you can do with this "something".

Did you actually bother to read the definition? I mean, it's only three words (even if one of them is hyphenated); it can't be that much of a strain.

That measure part is interesting though. What is it about "something" that you can measure?

What is this ""something"" you keep talking about? I never mentioned ""something"".

Try again: Self-referential information processing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

conscious- aware of ones thoughts

A function of the neocortex. Wakefulness, and levels of arousal are controlled by the ARAS. Proprioception (awareness of one's position in space) is handled in the basal ganglia. Memory is controlled via the hippocampus. These are, of course, great oversimplifications, but they are MUCH more accurate than vapid New Agey pronouncements on the great mystery of consciousness.

 

[PixyMisa]

conscious- aware of ones thoughts

What does "aware" mean?

What's a "thought"?

What is this "one"?

 

[PixyMisa]

Ahh some sentences.
So this information you process when you think, where does it come from?

And again, this is the wrong question.

You don't process information when you think. You think when you process information.

 

[!Kaggen]

Ahh some sentences.
So this information you process when you think, where does it come from?

It comes from multiple sources: Sensory data, memory, and other logical processes.
Why?

How and in what format does it enter your consciousness?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is not a definition your just calling consciousness "something" then saying what you can do with this "something".

That measure part is interesting though. What is it about "something" that you can measure?

You can measure a great many things. We have the ability to measure the firing across a single synapse. We can measure a single nerve fiber's frequency of action potentials. We can measure blood flow in the brain in real time. We can measure relative quantities of neurotransmitters and other chemicals in the blood and CSF.

But again, you can just wave your arms around and talk as if consciousness is a great mystery that has nothing to do with the brain or neuroscience. . . .

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How and in what format does it enter your consciousness?

You should probably take a freshman level course in biology.

Or at least read my posts.

Information of various forms (photons, mechanical energy, temperature) is converted by specialized sensory cells into action potentials in neurons. The "format" of the information is frequency of action potentials. When these action potentials reach various locations in the neocortex, it enters our consciousness.

 

[westprog]

So are you really saying that rabbits and dogs are the same because you can't tell their DnA apart.

I don't think I said anything about rabbits and dogs in this context. However, I think you'll find that rabbits and dogs do have different DNA, and that is why they are rabbits and dogs.

 

[PixyMisa]

How and in what format does it enter your consciousness?

And again this is the wrong question.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing. Information does not "enter your consciousness". Awareness is reference to information. Consciousness is reference to awareness.

 

[PixyMisa]

Note that despite the fact that JoeTheJuggler and I are giving different answers, I agree with everything he says.

 

[!Kaggen]

I've already explained the neuroscience model. Information comes in via sensory inputs, goes to the CNS via afferent fibers; in the CNS interneurons (often organized into very complex structures) process the information; "commands" go from the CNS via efferent neurons to the striated muscles for voluntary movement.

So as much as you like to think "Where does it come from?" is an unanswered question, you're wrong.

But you can continue to ignore what neuroscience has to say about consciousness and pretend it's a subject where vapid New Agey pronouncements are just as valid as science.

Why is it that every time I ask a question someone assumes I do not expect an answer?


In any case I think that that any information which we process using thinking first appears in our consciousness as a percept.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since when is consciousness limited to self-consciousness?

I can be conscious of the visual simuli in my environment. I can be conscious of sounds, pressures on various spots on my body as I sit here, the position of my body in space, etc.

Self-consciousness is just one subset of consciousness. So are all the other things I've been listing as examples: proprioception, memory, nociception, etc.

The primary visual cortex has been mapped out pretty thoroughly. There's plenty of evidence from neuroscience that this is where our consciousness of visual input happens.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is it that every time I ask a question someone assumes I do not expect an answer?

In part because you're asking questions that I've already answered on this thread. I assume that since you ignored this information before, you will ignore it again.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why is it that every time I ask a question someone assumes I do not expect an answer?

Because your questions contain false assumptions.

In any case I think that that any information which we process using thinking first appears in our consciousness as a percept.

Well, there's two ways to look at this.

One is that you're completely wrong.

The other is that you've redefined "thinking" to make this a tautology, which is completely useless.

 

[!Kaggen]

Information of various forms (photons, mechanical energy, temperature) is converted by specialized sensory cells into action potentials in neurons. The "format" of the information is frequency of action potentials. When these action potentials reach various locations in the neocortex, it enters our consciousness.

Information does not "enter your consciousness". Awareness is reference to information. Consciousness is reference to awareness.

Note that despite the fact that JoeTheJuggler and I are giving different answers, I agree with everything he says.

Well now this makes a lot of sense.
Then again I never understood democracy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some suggested reading:

neuroscience for kids:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html

the nervous system:
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookNERV.html

wiki article on the nervous system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system

After you understand the basics, then you can read up on current research in neuroscience. For example, the ARAS' role in arousal. Or the hippocampus' role in memory. The neuroscience of language is a whole topic unto itself. Proprioception and the basal ganglia and cerebellum.

Again simple volition (like moving your arm when you want to) is pretty well explained by neuroscience. QM has nothing to say about it.