Definition of Consciousness

[Anders Lindman]

That's like saying the printing ink on a page or a pixel on a screen is information.

This is not the information you're looking for...

Yes, I was thinking of information in a general sense, something like:

Information – Bateson defined information as "a difference which makes a difference." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson

 

[Anders Lindman]

Such as?

Such as the ordinary waking state and the dream state. Those are different levels of mind, not different levels of consciousness as I have defined it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

We need infinite information for consciousness to emerge?

No, but static and infinite information may cause consciousness to emerge. When there is a dynamic process, then finite amounts of information is enough for consciousness to emerge.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Correction: being aware of oneself.

Hmm... Maybe. Being "aware" is a somewhat fuzzy term.

 

[Belz...]

Read it again. I was talking about humans when humans are running.

No, you said 'Walking and running legs work according to the will of consciousness' without any mention of it being limited to humans. And I'M the one who introduced "running" into the conversation, as an analogy to "consciousness".

You have, again, lost track of the conversation.

 

[Belz...]

Being "aware" is a somewhat fuzzy term.

Not really.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Not really.

But for example is a video camera aware of the pixels it is filming? It's of course not self-aware but what about aware in a more general sense?

 

[dlorde]

... we are not consciously aware of those things going on, but consciousness may well be aware of all the things happening - only at a subconscious level.

Huh? isn't the normal definition of subconscious, 'below conscious awareness'? Are you using consciousness and conscious to refer to two quite different things? I'm accustomed to the usage where consciousness is what you have when you are conscious, so when you lose consciousness you are no longer conscious; and where consciousness is not aware of that which is subconscious.

If the brain creates consciousness, it does so in a very short time. Each brain functions individually and each brain creates consciousness automatically (no thought, no plan of action, no willful need to do so).
Each consciousness is created, not over eons of time, but super fast in relation to the physical universe.
Consciousness - if a creation of the brain, is not something which has happened over a long period of time.

Are you referring to development or evolution? consciousness has evolved as a function of the mammalian brain (perhaps others too) over at least tens of millions of years, which is long in human terms, short in cosmological terms. Consciousness in individuals develops as a consequence of that long evolution.

... Your reasons for believing consciousness ceases to exist have to do with observations this side of death ...

We have no observations of anything not 'this side' of death, which is another reason....

That is your belief. Others believe you are wrong. I have no opinion either way because quite rightly, there is nothing to tell me either way.

Nothing other than a large amount of evidence that consciousness is a certain kind of activity of certain kind of brain, and that, despite centuries of seeking, no evidence has been found to the contrary, no plausible means or mechanism has been described by which it might occur, and the idea would appear to contradict the most fundamental and reliable rules we know (LoTD). I submit that any reasonable person assessing that evidence would conclude that cessation of consciousness when brain activity ceases is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Navigator]

What is that supposed to mean ?

It signifies that whatever refers to itself in as 'I' 'me' 'we' etc is consciousness

And ?

Are different from machines which are not biological.

We DO know it for sure. Robots can run !

The pertinent part being the 'WE' Consciousness is what acknowledges the thing running. The robot is a machine which is not aware that it exists let alone that it is running.

Does a security camera linked to a recording VCR observe ?

No.

If not, what's your definition of "to observe" ?

Consciousness is that which observes. The camera is just a tool to help the process of capturing images and recording these for future reference - reference done by consciousness.

No, it looks that way from ALL perspectives. Again: look into it. Refusing to look into the evidence doesn't make it go away.

'All perspectives' looking into it can agree. I will copy paste what I said about this so that you can have a second opportunity to see that I have not disagreed with you about what is being observed.

It does show conclusively (to those still in a body and living) that individuate consciousness does not continue to be seen active after the death of the brain which birthed it in relation to that dead brain.
It does not and cannot show that the consciousness survives in some other state.

As such it does not tear down anyone's argument related to the possibility.


I disagree that the conclusions some come to related to their beliefs are true.

No. There is a way to know; we know; it doesn't survive, as much as I'd like it to.

^This is a claim.
As such it requires evidence.
You do not have that evidence. I know this for certain. No one has this evidence and no one can get this evidence until their body dies and if it works out they are still in a self aware state only in a different reality than the one they departed from, then they will have their evidence.
Otherwise they will just be dead.

In regard to the hilited part:
As much as you or anyone else might like it to be one way or the other, won;t change that position, once that position is either seen to be the case (because you continue to experience existence) or not (because you don't).

Really, it is not that hard to comprehend Belz

Of course it does: every indication of consciousness ceases, and the patient reports no passage of time between the two events, so both subjective and objective data show the same thing: no brain, no mind.

Please explain/clarify the hilited.

You are free to believe anything you want, but reality shows otherwise. Why would you not want to believe in reality is beyond me.

You are referring to reality as this physical universe. There is no need to 'believe' in it as it is self evident to the consciousness that I am.
There is no logic to believing in something which actually exists, and I can say it actually exists because I am experiencing it.
However, in relation to this discussion, just because a body has died does not mean that consciousness which experienced a life through that body is no longer itself still alive and experiencing some other reality.

We do not know. < Q: Why is that so difficult for you to understand? A: It has everything to do with your beliefs.

Some believe that consciousness is the product of the brain, because they observe this as being the case and there is no observable evidence that consciousness came into the human experience in the physical universe through another reality.

Even being that consciousness is believed to be a product of the brain, it is not known that it cannot survive without that brain.
For all we know, the whole process of the physical universe is to hatch consciousness. The physical universe might be the way to 'hatch' brains which in turn might be the 'eggs' which then hatch consciousness, which in turn might survive the death of that 'egg'.

All quite accidental but natural no less.

wE DON;T KNOW AND NO AMOUNT OF OBSERVING HOW CONSCIOUSNESS INTERACTS WITH THE BRAIN IS GOING TO PROVIDE ANY ANSWER.

(Oops sorry about the caps - i can;t be bothered rewriting that)

You are begging the question.

Not at all. I make no actual claims either way. People who make claims either way are.

No. You cannot call every claim a belief, because they are not all equal.

If they are equally reliant upon belief, then they are claims which are made without the equally necessary evidence.

Claims which state there is no individual conscious experience after this one require the evidence to support those claims. Without the evidence they cannot be accepted. They can be believed of course, but not by me personally.

 

[Navigator]

No, you said 'Walking and running legs work according to the will of consciousness' without any mention of it being limited to humans. And I'M the one who introduced "running" into the conversation, as an analogy to "consciousness".

You have, again, lost track of the conversation.

Consciousness is not limited to humans and thus there is no need to mention that.
I have not lost track of the conversation. I am bringing it back on track.

 

[Navigator]

]Huh? isn't the normal definition of subconscious, 'below conscious awareness'?

Yes it is, normally.

Are you using consciousness and conscious to refer to two quite different things?

Yes. Being conscious is different from being consciousness as they are from being unconscious. They are all related, but different states.

I'm accustomed to the usage where consciousness is what you have when you are conscious, so when you lose consciousness you are no longer conscious; and where consciousness is not aware of that which is subconscious.

That is understandable. I am using consciousness to say that is what I am.
Being conscious of being consciousness.
Being unconscious is like having that self awareness suspended in relation to the physical body.
Subconsciousness I tend to see as something which happens at a level of consciousness which I don't need to be consciously aware of - in fact it would get in the way of my experience of being in human form if I was aware of absolutely every thing which goes on regarding that human experience.

Are you referring to development or evolution?

I tend to think the two things are the same. Evolution is development and development is evolution.

consciousness has evolved as a function of the mammalian brain (perhaps others too) over at least tens of millions of years, which is long in human terms, short in cosmological terms. Consciousness in individuals develops as a consequence of that long evolution.

Consciousness is just consciousness. The brain is the thing which took the time.
Consciousness is not restricted to time in the same way. It can develop extremely quickly and change the way it sees itself, and everything else, overnight.

If consciousness (self awareness) has a brain which is damaged then within that context, it might have a difficult time of it trying to come to any particular understanding about its self. Or the state of the brain might have no particular affect on that, or something between those two extremes.

A brain in relation to the individual is not old. An individuals brain did not take eons of time and evolutionary tweaking to create.


Essentially brains have very little to do with consciousness and how consciousness evolves or self identifies.
Thoughts have something to do with both (and might be the bridge connecting the two) but consciousness has the final say in what thoughts it shall keep and which it shall discard, in relation to it self identity.

Consciousness decides what it is, in relation to its position - its experience and the data of its experience.

Brains do not require self awareness in order to function. But the level of the function will be more the mundane or mechanical.

We have no observations of anything not 'this side' of death, which is another reason....

It is the same reason - not another reason.

Nothing other than a large amount of evidence that consciousness is a certain kind of activity of certain kind of brain, and that, despite centuries of seeking, no evidence has been found to the contrary, no plausible means or mechanism has been described by which it might occur, and the idea would appear to contradict the most fundamental and reliable rules we know (LoTD). I submit that any reasonable person assessing that evidence would conclude that cessation of consciousness when brain activity ceases is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

You also thus submit that anyone who chooses to think other possibilities must thus be 'unreasonable'?

Yet...apart from obvious beliefs which individuals and groups attach to such ideas (of afterlife realms and experiences) there is nothing at all unreasonable with the idea.

In relation to just the physical observation made by the living, it is not under question that "cessation of consciousness when brain activity ceases" is exactly what is being observed. What is not being observed is not being observed because it cannot be observed.

But it also cannot be known for sure. We each of course might get that chance when our body dies - to observe any continuation of who we are, if that is indeed what will happen.

Therefore no one individual or group of individuals can make such claims either way and thus being asked to provide the evidence and fall short of doing so, be regarded as anything other than individuals or groups who want to believe whatever they will, for whatever reasons they do and want me to believe the same - on faith - without that evidence.

That is simply asking me to convert to belief systems which have no relevance to me as an individuate consciousness or to this life I am now experiencing.

The best position has to be the most logical. Until absolute evidence is given, I remain open minded and free to continue thinking critically and remain skeptical to such notions either way.
I do not disregard the possibility of life after death and I do not accept any particular stories of what that might be like should it be real.

That's just the 'bad boy' I am.

 

[Dancing David]

Such as the ordinary waking state and the dream state. Those are different levels of mind, not different levels of consciousness as I have defined it.

Oh too bad, those are very different levels of consciousness as defined and used commonly by the medical community.

Someone who is in a coma does not equal someone alert.

I assume you have a rigorous behavioral definition of mind?

 

[dlorde]

No, but static and infinite information may cause consciousness to emerge. When there is a dynamic process, then finite amounts of information is enough for consciousness to emerge.

If the information is 'static' (not entirely clear quite what that means) how can anything arise from it, however much of it there is?

 

[dlorde]

Yes. Being conscious is different from being consciousness as they are from being unconscious. They are all related, but different states.

Please explain the difference, as you see it. The normal meaning of consciousness is the condition of being conscious.

I am using consciousness to say that is what I am.

It's a noun; grammatically, you are a consciousness.

Subconsciousness I tend to see as something which happens at a level of consciousness which I don't need to be consciously aware of...

That makes no sense to me. If you're going to redefine words or use obscure definitions, communication will fail unless you clarify precisely what you mean by them (or, preferably, use more suitable words).

I tend to think the two things are the same. Evolution is development and development is evolution.

I should have been more explicit - I was contrasting evolution by natural selection with neonatal development & maturation.

Consciousness is just consciousness.

Tautologically so.

The brain is the thing which took the time.

Consciousness is brain activity; consequently it evolves with the brain.

Consciousness is not restricted to time in the same way. It can develop extremely quickly and change the way it sees itself, and everything else, overnight.

You'll have to explain precisely what you mean by that - some examples might help.

A brain in relation to the individual is not old.

An individual's brain is exactly as old as that individual.

An individuals brain did not take eons of time and evolutionary tweaking to create.

In an evolutionary sense, it did. From a developmental viewpoint it didn't.

Essentially brains have very little to do with consciousness and how consciousness evolves or self identifies. Thoughts have something to do with both (and might be the bridge connecting the two) but consciousness has the final say in what thoughts it shall keep and which it shall discard, in relation to it self identity.

Consciousness is a brain process, what happens when a brain is active in a particular way. Your statement bears no relation to the knowledge we have about the brain & consciousness.

Brains do not require self awareness in order to function. But the level of the function will be more the mundane or mechanical.

And?

It is the same reason - not another reason.

The lack of observation of anything after death is another reason in the sense that it is entirely consistent with death being the end.

You also thus submit that anyone who chooses to think other possibilities must thus be 'unreasonable'?

No, but it is implicit, given the knowledge and understanding of the information I described; unless you have some reasonable contrary argument?

Yet...apart from obvious beliefs which individuals and groups attach to such ideas (of afterlife realms and experiences) there is nothing at all unreasonable with the idea.

OK, I'll bite - what reasonable argument is there for it in the light of the information I mentioned?

In relation to just the physical observation made by the living, it is not under question that "cessation of consciousness when brain activity ceases" is exactly what is being observed. What is not being observed is not being observed because it cannot be observed.

Have you heard of Sagan's Dragon? it's all about special pleading.

That is simply asking me to convert to belief systems which have no relevance to me as an individuate consciousness or to this life I am now experiencing.

I haven't asked anything of the kind. I proposed that a reasonable person would accept that, given the information I described, the conclusion I gave was beyond reasonable doubt. You have yet to supply an argument to the contrary.

Until absolute evidence is given, I remain open minded and free to continue thinking critically and remain skeptical to such notions either way.

What is 'absolute evidence'? what makes it absolute?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Oh too bad, those are very different levels of consciousness as defined and used commonly by the medical community.

Someone who is in a coma does not equal someone alert.

I assume you have a rigorous behavioral definition of mind?

I forgot to include in the definition that consciousness is an on/off state. For example in dreamless sleep my consciousness is off and when I wake up my consciousness is activated to on.

The mind is in my definition the content experienced by consciousness. So for example, a thought is a pattern, a part of the mind. A thought isn't conscious of itself. It's consciousness that is aware of the thought.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If the information is 'static' (not entirely clear quite what that means) how can anything arise from it, however much of it there is?

That's what I meant by my initial explanation that finite static information cannot cause consciousness. The tricky part is that infinite static information is able to produce a process in time (since it's infinite amount).

 

[dlorde]

...The tricky part is that infinite static information is able to produce a process in time (since it's infinite amount).

For values of tricky==nonsense, perhaps; otherwise you'll have to explain how it does, what you mean, and how you know...

 

[Anders Lindman]

For values of tricky==nonsense, perhaps; otherwise you'll have to explain how it does, what you mean, and how you know...

"It is even possible to accommodate countably infinitely many coach-loads of countably infinite passengers each. The possibility of doing so depends on the seats in the coaches being already numbered (alternatively, the hotel manager must have the axiom of choice at his or her disposal). First empty the odd numbered rooms as above, then put the first coach's load in rooms 3n for n = 1, 2, 3, ..., the second coach's load in rooms 5n for n = 1, 2, ... and so on; for coach number i we use the rooms pn where p is the (i + 1)-st prime number." -- https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Hilbert_s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel.html

If we have infinite information in the form of the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and then observe that static information, then how long would it take? It would take an infinite amount of time! (Given that the information is distributed temporally, not only spatially.)

 

[Anders Lindman]

I don't think there are higher levels of consciousness and instead there are higher levels of mind. And the mind is the content experienced by consciousness. When enough information is integrated in certain ways, then that causes consciousness to emerge, such as when we go from dreamless sleep (too little information integration) to the waking state (enough information integration to activate consciousness).

In dreamless sleep there is still a huge amount of information processing going on in the brain but it's not integrated enough to cause consciousness. Christof Koch mentioned that they have actually measured that. In dreamless sleep when a signal is sent into the brain it "reverberates" for only a brief moment, and in the waking state the signal reverberates within the brain for much longer duration. Something like that.

In the dream state (having a dream when sleeping) there is consciousness but a lower level of mind than in the waking state. That made me think of the possibility to increase the level of mind, not only in the brain but in the whole body! The whole nervous system is a huge information process. And when the information integration is enhanced within the whole nervous system, then consciousness will have a higher level of experience. More of the nervous system becomes conscious. And possibly the whole body can become conscious through mindfulness and inner body awareness practice.

 

[John Jones]

It signifies that whatever refers to itself in as 'I' 'me' 'we' etc is consciousness

Are different from machines which are not biological.

The pertinent part being the 'WE' Consciousness is what acknowledges the thing running. The robot is a machine which is not aware that it exists let alone that it is running.

No.

Consciousness is that which observes. The camera is just a tool to help the process of capturing images and recording these for future reference - reference done by consciousness.

'All perspectives' looking into it can agree. I will copy paste what I said about this so that you can have a second opportunity to see that I have not disagreed with you about what is being observed.

It does show conclusively (to those still in a body and living) that individuate consciousness does not continue to be seen active after the death of the brain which birthed it in relation to that dead brain.
It does not and cannot show that the consciousness survives in some other state.

As such it does not tear down anyone's argument related to the possibility.


I disagree that the conclusions some come to related to their beliefs are true.

^This is a claim.
As such it requires evidence.
You do not have that evidence. I know this for certain. No one has this evidence and no one can get this evidence until their body dies and if it works out they are still in a self aware state only in a different reality than the one they departed from, then they will have their evidence.
Otherwise they will just be dead.

In regard to the hilited part:
As much as you or anyone else might like it to be one way or the other, won;t change that position, once that position is either seen to be the case (because you continue to experience existence) or not (because you don't).

Really, it is not that hard to comprehend Belz

Please explain/clarify the hilited.

You are referring to reality as this physical universe. There is no need to 'believe' in it as it is self evident to the consciousness that I am.
There is no logic to believing in something which actually exists, and I can say it actually exists because I am experiencing it.
However, in relation to this discussion, just because a body has died does not mean that consciousness which experienced a life through that body is no longer itself still alive and experiencing some other reality.

We do not know. < Q: Why is that so difficult for you to understand? A: It has everything to do with your beliefs.

Some believe that consciousness is the product of the brain, because they observe this as being the case and there is no observable evidence that consciousness came into the human experience in the physical universe through another reality.

Even being that consciousness is believed to be a product of the brain, it is not known that it cannot survive without that brain.
For all we know, the whole process of the physical universe is to hatch consciousness. The physical universe might be the way to 'hatch' brains which in turn might be the 'eggs' which then hatch consciousness, which in turn might survive the death of that 'egg'.

All quite accidental but natural no less.

wE DON;T KNOW AND NO AMOUNT OF OBSERVING HOW CONSCIOUSNESS INTERACTS WITH THE BRAIN IS GOING TO PROVIDE ANY ANSWER.

(Oops sorry about the caps - i can;t be bothered rewriting that)

Not at all. I make no actual claims either way. People who make claims either way are.

If they are equally reliant upon belief, then they are claims which are made without the equally necessary evidence.

Claims which state there is no individual conscious experience after this one require the evidence to support those claims. Without the evidence they cannot be accepted. They can be believed of course, but not by me personally.

Wow. Would you like to distill your opinions down to a few cogent points of discussion?

A brief reply would be much appreciated.