Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Beelzebuddy]

Hmm interesting.
Yes there can be a lot of baggage in language, revealing baggage.
Take the word "I". I assume this is what you mean by "internal voice".
Now this is one of those words that appears impossible to learn from others.
It certainly is not obvious that we would say "I" as small children referring to ourselves because others referred to themselves this way. It is really difficult to describe what "I" is to a child in an objective way, unlike the word "big" for example. It seems to be a word which is simply realized rather than learned from others. "I" does not appear to have a functional definition as it can only describe yourself not others. Perhaps this is where the difficulty is in establishing a definition for consciousness as it includes this "internal voice".

You don't think children are explicitly taught to use "I" when referring to themselves?

 

[rocketdodger]

Hmm interesting.
Yes there can be a lot of baggage in language, revealing baggage.
Take the word "I". I assume this is what you mean by "internal voice".
Now this is one of those words that appears impossible to learn from others.
It certainly is not obvious that we would say "I" as small children referring to ourselves because others referred to themselves this way. It is really difficult to describe what "I" is to a child in an objective way, unlike the word "big" for example. It seems to be a word which is simply realized rather than learned from others. "I" does not appear to have a functional definition as it can only describe yourself not others. Perhaps this is where the difficulty is in establishing a definition for consciousness as it includes this "internal voice".

It is worth noting that many languages treat "self" in a different light.

For example I think Japanese rarely references first person self and instead the language just uses the implied self if there is a lack of explicit subject and it could be understood from the past context of the conversation alone.

I also think they avoid using second person references when possible.

So a literal translation to English might look like

me: "Didn't see !Kaggen post last week."
you: "Yes, didn't post."

I have often wondered whether the Japanese have the same internal voice as us, as in whether they are as consciously self-aware. Surely they are -- or do the mechanisms of our language really influence conscious thought so much that it is possible to be more or less self aware based on the languages one is fluent in?

 

[rocketdodger]

You don't think children are explicitly taught to use "I" when referring to themselves?

That is a good question. At first I would have assumed they just pick it up from their parents, but I wonder if parents need to continually correct them.

Do children say things like "want candy" and English speaking parents need to correct them with "'I' want candy?"

 

[Piggy]

Yep - as I said the definition for conciousness is the set of behaviours of ourselves and others that we learn to label with the word conciousness.

I'm afraid this is also useless in the lab.

 

[punshhh]

Good luck with that. Definitions that allow plants consciousness and attribute intelligence to an on-off switch with a timer seem to me too broad to be useful.

I'm not defining consciousness here, only pointing out that primitive life forms both exhibit behavior which suggests they have the precursors to consciousness in place and that they are essentially our ancestors or relatives, from which our form of consciousness has developed.

ETA: the lesson I was pointing out is that intelligence and possibly consciousness can arise in nervous systems with radically different developmental histories and architectures, which suggests it isn't just a lucky fluke of vertebrate brains, but is quite likely to arise where creatures with a nervous system evolve in suitable environments.

Yes there may be lessons to learn from this. As I say the precursors or origin of a more advanced consciousness were already present before such a branching off occurred.

I guess punshhh missed the implicit requirement for an advanced nervous system.

Tut tut. Perhaps you are referring to the requirement of an advanced nervous system for higher forms of intelligence
and self conscious awareness.

Take care not to conflate intelligence with consciousness.

 

[Piggy]

Would you like to get rid of the intelligence factor altogether piggy? Do you want to allow for consciousness to exist independently of any level of intelligence?

Why would I want to do that, when I just said that I think it's highly likely that intelligence is necessary for consciousness?

Also, if you are into analogies, lets at least get it right: this is alot like studying cars, developing a general theory of transportation, and then noting that when airplanes land they do so on the same kind of wheels as cars ( namely, round ones ), that cars can be propelled by airplane engines, that both airplanes and cars are controlled by steering, throttle, and brakes, that both have headlights so the operator can see in the dark, that both are made of metal and plastics, that both carry passengers, that both of them tend to crumple up or explode when they crash, and that when cars go *really* fast they experience identical forces to what airplanes experience, and really fast cars use wings ( upside-down ).

So I could be stupid, but it seems to me that you can learn a heck of a lot about airplanes by studying cars.

You can indeed learn something about airplanes by studying cars... but in order to know which of the things you learned apply to planes, and in what ways, you have to actually go study a plane.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Do children say things like "want candy" and English speaking parents need to correct them with "'I' want candy?"

Yes, exactly, in that higher-pitched and carefully-enunciated tone common to all languages which means "this is what you should be saying."

Who says kids aren't programmed?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why would I want to do that, when I just said that I think it's highly likely that intelligence is necessary for consciousness?

Lol -- then why did you just ask why people keep bringing up intelligence in discussions about consciousness?

You can indeed learn something about airplanes by studying cars... but in order to know which of the things you learned apply to planes, and in what ways, you have to actually go study a plane.

Well now your analogy is even worse, because people do study animal behavior and intelligence, and compare the findings with what we have learned from studying machine behavior and intelligence.

So I don't really know what you are trying to say -- perhaps you could find an analogy that doesn't fall apart in your lap?

 

[!Kaggen]

You don't think children are explicitly taught to use "I" when referring to themselves?

In my experience with my own 2 children and friends children I have yet to see a child explicitly taught to refer to themselves as "I".
I think it would make an interesting study. Come on behaviorists, Jeff?

 

[dlorde]

.. the precursors or origin of a more advanced consciousness were already present before such a branching off occurred.

What 'precursors' would those be?

Perhaps you are referring to the requirement of an advanced nervous system for higher forms of intelligence and self conscious awareness.

Obviously.

Take care not to conflate intelligence with consciousness.

Thanks, I'll try not to

 

[!Kaggen]

It is worth noting that many languages treat "self" in a different light.

For example I think Japanese rarely references first person self and instead the language just uses the implied self if there is a lack of explicit subject and it could be understood from the past context of the conversation alone.

I also think they avoid using second person references when possible.

So a literal translation to English might look like

me: "Didn't see !Kaggen post last week."
you: "Yes, didn't post."

I have often wondered whether the Japanese have the same internal voice as us, as in whether they are as consciously self-aware. Surely they are -- or do the mechanisms of our language really influence conscious thought so much that it is possible to be more or less self aware based on the languages one is fluent in?

In the Xhosa language they always join the "I" and the verb so the "I" never stands alone. Ndijonga - I look, Ndifuna - I learn

I certainly think these language differences effect consciousness.
How exactly would certainly be an interesting study.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, exactly, in that higher-pitched and carefully-enunciated tone common to all languages which means "this is what you should be saying."

Who says kids aren't programmed?

Actually, it's not common to all cultures, and as it turns out, attempting to correct kids as they learn language is a waste of time. They get it when they get it, regardless of whether anyone attempts to correct them or not. You can pat yourself on the back for "teaching" your kid to talk, but you're fooling yourself if you do... it's like congratulating yourself for teaching them to get taller.

 

[Piggy]

Well now your analogy is even worse, because people do study animal behavior and intelligence, and compare the findings with what we have learned from studying machine behavior and intelligence.

Yes, they certainly do.

It's a good practice to follow.

Because any ideas about consciousness which aren't based on study of the brain and verified by study of the brain are pretty much worthless.

 

[punshhh]

What 'precursors' would those be?

That aspect of biochemistry which animates cellular life. Resulting in a rudimentary awareness, personal chemical integrity and a rudimentary intelligence.

Obviously.

So I didn't miss the correlation between an advanced nervous system and the more complex kinds of consciousness and intelligence.
While I was pointing out that living things have a rudimentary consciousness which does not require an advanced nervous system.

 

[Darat]

I'm afraid this is also useless in the lab.

Well the thread does ask for definitions for "the layman" but that aside you are wrong, it is very useful definition for exploring what humans label "conciousness". Indeed I would go so far as to assert that without using such a definition you can't even begin to explore the whole area.

What would be the point of trying to "scientifically" understand what people don't label conciousness?

 

[Darat]

In my experience with my own 2 children and friends children I have yet to see a child explicitly taught to refer to themselves as "I".
I think it would make an interesting study. Come on behaviorists, Jeff?

I'm really surprised to hear that. Perhaps that's a matter of language, I've often heard adults telling a kid to say "I" - often when the kid has said "me". Granted I often disagree with the adults' correction since such usage is a matter of dialect in English.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I have often wondered whether the Japanese have the same internal voice as us, as in whether they are as consciously self-aware. Surely they are -- or do the mechanisms of our language really influence conscious thought so much that it is possible to be more or less self aware based on the languages one is fluent in?

I would use "differently aware" rather than your turn of phrase but I would not find it at surprising if language does not shape the internal voice, after all our external voices do seem to do so.

A problem for this way of looking at things is that old problem: other's don't have direct access to our internal voice - so you and I have no direct evidence that our "consciousness" is the same or even similar. But as in many of these problems science is making huge leaps forward and that is changing rapidly as scientists are more and more able to "read a mind" directly.

 

[punshhh]

I'm really surprised to hear that. Perhaps that's a matter of language, I've often heard adults telling a kid to say "I" - often when the kid has said "me". Granted I often disagree with the adults' correction since such usage is a matter of dialect in English.

There is a point when the concept of an independent self dawns on a young child. The use of "me" and "I" become associated with this concept through language usage.

I remember when it dawned on me and that before that point I didn't consciously realise that I was a separate person from my mum and dad.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Because any ideas about consciousness which aren't based on study of the brain and verified by study of the brain are pretty much worthless.

Again that's not necessarily true (but I happen to think you have a strong point). If you were to study "sunrise" (the common example) you would find that what you were studying was folklore i.e. the sun does not rise, it only appears to rise. Which is something we could work out and understand without studying the folklore of a "sunrise".

That's why I said above you are wrong about the definition I've put forward in this thread (to paraphrase) not being of any use for science. The first step in understanding anything is to know what it is you are trying to understand and I think much of the discussion about "conciousness" is addressing the folklore duality embedded in our language, like studying "sunrise" turns out not to be about studying the sun rising but orbital mechanics.

 

[Piggy]

Well the thread does ask for definitions for "the layman" but that aside you are wrong, it is very useful definition for exploring what humans label "conciousness". Indeed I would go so far as to assert that without using such a definition you can't even begin to explore the whole area.

What would be the point of trying to "scientifically" understand what people don't label conciousness?

That's not the same thing as saying that consciousness is whatever we choose to use that label to describe.

But if that's what you mean, how is it not a tautology? If I want to study bicycles or cubism or the Dead Sea scrolls, aren't I always studying the things which we use those labels for?