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

[PixyMisa]

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

It's not democracy.

Both answers are correct.

Joe set aside the errors in your model of consciousness, and explained the neurological processes that are involved in what actually happens in conscious awareness.

I corrected you on your model.

Consciousness is not a thing or a place; it's a process, a self-referential process. Which happens, by the by, in the brain.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Yes, I disagree with Pixy that the term consciousness only refers to self-consciousness.

So, are you going to learn about the basics of the nervous system? It will answer many of these questions. And even where it can't (yet) answer a question related to consciousness, I guarantee it will point to possible answers in a way that QM will not.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

I think you are not able to differentiate between awareness and consciousness.

 

[Limbo]

Where does intuition fit in?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, I disagree with Pixy that the term consciousness only refers to self-consciousness.

Though this is just a question of terminology, I think

I say "consciousness" where you say "self-consciousness", and I say "awareness" where you say "consciousness".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you are not able to differentiate between awareness and consciousness.

I think you haven't read much on the subject of consciousness.

While there are many definitions, the specific functions I've been talking about are all components of what we call consciousness.

Natsoulas proposed Consciousness 3, which is basically perceptual consciousness, and Consciousness 4, is awareness that one is thinking or feeling a certain way.

So yes, I have been saying that self-awareness is only one part of consciousness. (However, I've also been pointing to neuroscience's advances in proprioception which is, in fact, a very specific type of self awareness.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where does intuition fit in?

I think intuition just refers to pattern matching that humans do without being aware they are doing it. For example, we can recognize faces with great accuracy, but we have a very difficult time explaining how we do it. (Giving a verbal description of a face rarely can identify an individual, but when we see an image, we can usually tell right away if it's the right person or not.)

You raise an important point: a lot of what the nervous system does is stuff we are not aware of. While I think models of the "conscious" vs "unconscious" mind are grossly oversimplified, there is something to it.

A lot of what we're unaware of that goes on in our minds is non-verbal. Since language is predominantly (but not entirely) controlled by structures in one cerebral hemisphere, the notion of left-brain vs. right-brain used to be used to talk about the difference between thinking we are aware of and something like "intuition". Of course, in normal brains we have lateral fibers connecting the hemispheres so they are fully integrated. (The corpus callosum, for example, is the largest bundle of these fibers.)

By the way brain "fibers" refer to groups of axons. They are the "white matter" (since they are myelinated they look white), while nerve cell bodies are the "grey matter".

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

Yes, I disagree with Pixy that the term consciousness only refers to self-consciousness.

So, are you going to learn about the basics of the nervous system? It will answer many of these questions. And even where it can't (yet) answer a question related to consciousness, I guarantee it will point to possible answers in a way that QM will not.

Thanks for the encouragement Joe.
I have a B.Sc degree in Zoology and I was top of the class so I know how the nervous system works

And actually

In vision the optic nerves transmit separate quadrants of the visual field which is also inverted from each retina.
2 quadrants from each retina are transmitted to the upper gyrus in the left occipital lobe and 2 quadrants from each retina are transmitted to the upper gyrus in the right occipital lobe. The other 4 are transmitted to the lower gyrus of the left and right occipital lobe in the same way. In other words 2 quandrants from each retina have there signals transmitted to the opposite side of the brain (left/right retina to right/left occipital lobe).
Thus 8 different signals are transmitted to the brain, but we are only conscious of 4 from one retina (right one in right-handed people). The other 4 are suppressed from consciousness and processed further for depth perception. The conscious 4 signals are then scattered around the brain for further processing.

So does all the optic nerve information from all 8 quadrants of the retina translate to perception or only 4. If we could project the optic nerve signals onto a projector screen the image would not resemble the original visual field. We would need to re-work the signals so as to get the image to resemble the original visual field. Specifically the depth perception which is not implicit in the image on the retina.

Furthermore the signals are then further dissected within the brain so that much of the whole picture is now "scattered" for processing . There has been no evidence to suggest that the "scattered" processed signals are ever "re-united" in a specific brain location to be interpreted.

My take is simply this.
Science is not a justified a priori assumption.
Therefore we need an epistemology which justifies science.
The basis of this epistemology therefore cannot use the results of science.
It must be built up from no pre-suppositions.
I iterate that does not imply science is incorrect or irrelevant, on the contrary it implies science has a completely solid basis if we can provide it with such an epistemology.

You may argue that so far science has done well enough without an epistemology containing no a priori assumptions. However I am convince this is the gap through which superstition pokes its head and ignoring it is counter-productive in finally putting the nail in the coffin of superstition.

 

[!Kaggen]

Though this is just a question of terminology, I think

I say "consciousness" where you say "self-consciousness", and I say "awareness" where you say "consciousness".

Yes, that is also what I think Joe is saying.

 

[PixyMisa]

Science is not a justified a priori assumption.

It's not an a priori assumption.

Therefore we need an epistemology which justifies science.

No we don't. We don't because science actually works.

The basis of this epistemology therefore cannot use the results of science.

Epistemology is irrelevant. All you need is methodology.

It must be built up from no pre-suppositions.

Pre-suppositions are irrelevant.

I iterate that does not imply science is incorrect or irrelevant, on the contrary it implies science has a completely solid basis if we can provide it with such an epistemology.

You can't. And it's not needed.

You may argue that so far science has done well enough without an epistemology containing no a priori assumptions.

No, I won't argue that. I'll argue that you can't make such a thing.

However I am convince this is the gap through which superstition pokes its head and ignoring it is counter-productive in finally putting the nail in the coffin of superstition.

You may be convinced of that. It's not true.

 

[quarky]

If we can examine the firing of a single neuron, in theory, we could observe the process much closer, and slowed down enough to notice that the 'spark' is facilitated by the change in the state of a single electron.

The collapse of an avalanche might also be observed, hypotheticly, to occur with the addition of a single snowflake.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some more about information processing in the brain:

A given neuron can have thousands of dendrites. Dendrites are on the post synaptic side wrt the previous axon delivering action potentials. In the cell body, at the axon hillock, all the inputs from the dendrites are "summed" (some of the signals are, in this respect, "negative" or repressive). If the sum reaches a threshold, the cell will "fire" an action potential down its axon to the next synapse. While action potentials are all or nothing, the signals coming from the dendrites are graded. Their proximity to the axon hillock determines largely how strong their signal is.

So you can see, these are fabulously complex information processors. (And this description is vastly over-simplified.)

However, none of us are aware of a single neuron's function. Consciousness is something that happens at a higher level. The pattern and/or frequency of action potentials is important. But consciousness resides in the neocortex. If you deactivate the neocortex, you do not have consciousness. (Specific elements of it have been localized too. If you knock out the primary visual cortex, you lose visual perception, which is part of consciousness.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If we can examine the firing of a single neuron, in theory, we could observe the process much closer, and slowed down enough to notice that the 'spark' is facilitated by the change in the state of a single electron.

I don't think that's correct.

At any rate, if you wish to study consciousness, looking at a single electron (not in a molecule in a cell in the brain), will not tell you anything about consciousness.

No more than looking at the properties of a single brick will tell you about the properties of a house.

 

[Dancing David]

I can see that this may happen, since after all we are communicating in a language which is not logically perfect. I still don't think its a reason to give up, but press onwards regardless of the difficulties.

Of course.

 

[Dancing David]

Just to be clear are you saying that everything of which we are aware is an appearance?

Might as well be, we can never know for sure.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you believe that the scientific consciousness of which you speak above has a history?

In which sense? There are historical impressions of what consciousness is.

But nothing exists outside the moment of the present.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah I suppose I take the difficult things for granted sometimes. No really I do understand emergence as it was one of my favorite topics as a biology student.
I am certainly not harping on about amounts because I want to ignore arrangement and interaction. I am just interested in understanding any reasons someone might have for amounts being irrelevant.

Well the defintion is the first place, then it is the arrangement and patterns that either meet the defintion or don't.

 

[Dancing David]

Waiter, you served me a crap cake!



Ah, I am a native speaker of Engrish.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't consider a thermostat to be conscious either. Aware, but not conscious.

Darn, me and my old brain.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Yeah, the vestibular sense itself is just ginormous. It encompasses at least three other senses.