My philosphy on consciousness

[Xetrov]

Hello people,

As I explained in my "hello" posting, I am pretty much interested currently in any issues related to consciousnes, and in general love to philosophise about this subject. Just recently I started writing a short article about my current viewpoint, which I just finished. I did also read up on the forum on almost all of the previous topics related to consciousness. So I can say that probably most of what's in my article won't be new, but I think there are still a few points in it that have not been risen before, which in my opinion makes it worth posting here. It is just meant as an overview of my current viewpoint, which is of course prone to change given the right evidence and arguments. I hope some people will be interested to read it and perhaps give some comment or critique, since I know there are some critical thinkers around here. Anyway, here it goes:
___________________________

In this short article I will explain my point of view regarding consciousness. Describing in language what I exactly mean by consciousness is extremely difficult. My best try so far goes as follows: Consciousness is a phenomenon that has the intrinsic property of consciousness. This only looks to be a statement of circular nature due to the nature of the phenomenon: first of all there is nothing else to compare it with, and second because it has no other properties than the earlier stated intrinsic property of consciousness. This means we can describe the phenomenon only in an exact way by pointing to itself. If we want to avoid statements of circular nature when describing consciousness, we have to apply metaphors. For example, consciousness is the “space” in which our experiences appear, or in other words, the witness of all (subjective) experiences. This definition of consciousness means that I see it as not being the same as thought, or as any other experience for that matter, nor as merely the functions of the brain.

Some might argue that consciousness is an illusion. Basically this would come down to the idea that thought is really all there is. But humans can be self-aware, they can be conscious of consciousness. Doing so can be done without thought, for example you can just realise that you are present (for example during meditation). Also, if thought is all there is, then who is witnessing the thoughts? Obviously, we are conscious of thought, so consciousness is not an illusion.

To me, the most interesting aspect about consciousness is that it has the ability to be self-conscious. This means that observer (consciousness) and observed (again consciousness) are merged into one, integrated into one phenomenon. Can this tell us something about the question if a material object (like the brain, or any structure in the brain) can be self-aware? 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. In a hypothetical universe where only a lone object exists (for example think of a lone eye), this could never observe itself, since it does not have the capacity to relay it’s own image to itself. This shows that a material object lacks the required quality of observer and observed integrated into one, meaning that consciousness can never consist of merely such an object. There is however another phenomenon related to the brain that looks promising in explaining the origin of consciousness, which is the bio-electric magnetic field created by the brain, since any electric field is also an integrated whole (different waves can overlap and in this way, be one).

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. 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. An example of an external change is being close to a powerful electric current (like a high voltage wire). 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 this is not because the brain is shielded from these fields, otherwise we could never measure brainwaves.

An example of a huge change in the electric field of the brain caused by internal factors is provided by people who are advanced at meditation. They can shut down large parts of their brain activity, while still being as conscious as ever. Some can even “meditate” their brainwaves to a state of nearly pure delta-waves. This is comparable to deep sleep, a state where only the brainstem remains largely active. People able to meditate this deep report remaining conscious, which is true because how else would they decide to stop meditating? That clearly is a conscious decision. If consciousness arises from the electric field of the brain, this would all be very weird, since it would mean again that very different electric fields can yield consciousness (mixed brainwave activity as opposed to pure delta waves).

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. They still have the same property of consciousness, and can be as conscious as any “normal” human being. If consciousness is indeed generated by the bio-electrical activity of the brain, that would be very weird, because a brain of that size will have a bio-electric field of totally different properties, due to the fact that it is generated by less and / or different brain matter than in individuals having a full brain.

All these examples show that consciousness is independent on the physical properties of the bio-electric field, because fields with an extremely wide variety of properties can still yield consciousness. However, if consciousness finds it’s origin in this electric field of the brain, as some scientists would have us believe, but is clearly not dependant on the properties of this field, then why do electric fields outside of our brain not yield consciousness? Clearly those also have the same requirements. This makes the bio-electric field of the brain as the true origin of consciousness highly suspect to me, if not an impossibility.

Finally, I would also like to point out that it is not a valid argument, as it is sometimes uttered, to claim that consciousness must be somehow created by the brain because materialism would fail if it is not true. First of all, any claim needs proof. If there is proof that consciousness originates from the brain, then so be it, but it has still to be found. Second, claiming that consciousness is not created by the brain does not mean that materialism is false. It only states that materialism is unable to make any claims so far about consciousness. Personally, I think this is because consciousness does not consist of any matter or energy. It is only that which is aware of matter and energy. To me, consciousness seems to be an independent fundamental property intrinsic to existence and experience, that exists alongside matter and energy.

* I have examples of this but restrictions seem to prevent me from posting links.
___________________________

Well, thats it for now, I hope it was an enjoyable read, and that the arguments I used aren't too flawed (if so, please point them out). Thanks for reading (if you did) .

 

[Fnord]

Cute article, Xetrov!

Can you provide references, including your own credentials?

Thanx!

 

[rocketdodger]

Putting the "first cause" logical fallacies of your argument aside, there is plenty of potential for self awareness in purely physical structures.

 

[cyborg]

To me, consciousness seems to be an independent fundamental property intrinsic to existence and experience, that exists alongside matter and energy.

Much like the joy of a sunny day is an independent fundamental property intrinsic to existence and experience apart from photons and atoms I suppose.

 

[Lanzy]

Couldn't read the whole thread before I lost con...

well, you know someone had to try.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Interesting stuff. I was particularly struck by your remark about "when one is watching one's thoughts, who is watching?" Sounds very like some of Jiddu Krishnamurti's insights. If you haven't read him, give it a try, especially The Flight of the Eagle. the nature of consciousness was kind of his "thing."

I experienced about five days of "enlightenment" or "satori" about twenty years ago (I'll probably get around to posting something on it someday), and it was intense and elevating and all that, but it was ultimately trivial. It was a state of consciousness without words; the internal monologue was turned off, and I experienced my surroundings directly, without mental commentary or exercising anything like conscious cognition--moving from one moment to the next, totally absorbed in sensation without thought in the present moment.

Big whoop. It was a terrific "high" (and remember, I survived the 60s), but it was meaningless, literally. Meaning requires thought, and thought requires words. It was an animal state of consciousness that was subjectively intense and involving, but without significance..

My own belief is that that which we call the Self or the Ego in everyday life is nothing more than the interplay between sensation and memory; that it does not really exist. There is something else, though--the "watcher" you mentioned--that is different from that interplay. Not higher, lower, or deeper--just different. It is the part of our minds or selves that remains detached during moments of intense emotion, sensation, or crisis, and from which we sometimes seem to act without thought.

These are my own subjective insights. I have no idea what they might mean. Since I do not believe in a separate "soul" that is independent of the body, I can only guess that this "watcher" is the true seat of human consciousness, whereas the place where our heads are normally at (sorry, the 60s again) is an illusion.

Another book you might enjoy (as would any skeptic--much insight on the origins of the "gods" and the physiological source of the human religious impulse) has the biggest mouthful of a title of any book I have ever read: Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. A new revision came out a few years ago. Don't miss it.

It's essential reading for anyone who doesn't believe in God; does more to explain where religious belief came from in the first place (and why the gods don't speak any more) than any book I can think of. Enjoy...

 

[cyborg]

It is the part of our minds or selves that remains detached during moments of intense emotion, sensation, or crisis, and from which we sometimes seem to act without thought.

Ugh. Every part of your brain acts "without thought". Thought is a higher-order concept used to explain particular ways your brain behaves with regards to its information processing. There's nothing really spectacularly different going on.

Come now: do "you" really expect to be privy to all the intimate internal processing details? What one part of your brain "knows" about another is rather going to be limited by what it is "told" about it is it not?

If anything the real trick you're missing here is to think there's anything but "watchers" in the mind. The self sense is just a part of that.

 

[TuftedPuffin]

Hello people,

In this short article I will explain my point of view regarding consciousness. Describing in language what I exactly mean by consciousness is extremely difficult. My best try so far goes as follows: Consciousness is a phenomenon that has the intrinsic property of consciousness. This only looks to be a statement of circular nature due to the nature of the phenomenon: first of all there is nothing else to compare it with, and second because it has no other properties than the earlier stated intrinsic property of consciousness. This means we can describe the phenomenon only in an exact way by pointing to itself. If we want to avoid statements of circular nature when describing consciousness, we have to apply metaphors. For example, consciousness is the “space” in which our experiences appear, or in other words, the witness of all (subjective) experiences. This definition of consciousness means that I see it as not being the same as thought, or as any other experience for that matter, nor as merely the functions of the brain.

Is consciousness related to what the majority of people refer to when they use the word consciousness? If so, you've got an objective, non-circular definition.

Some might argue that consciousness is an illusion. Basically this would come down to the idea that thought is really all there is. But humans can be self-aware, they can be conscious of consciousness. Doing so can be done without thought, for example you can just realise that you are present (for example during meditation). Also, if thought is all there is, then who is witnessing the thoughts? Obviously, we are conscious of thought, so consciousness is not an illusion.

Not sure that's exactly what they mean, there are other things brains do besides thought, but in any case it isn't my view so I won't defend it...

To me, the most interesting aspect about consciousness is that it has the ability to be self-conscious. This means that observer (consciousness) and observed (again consciousness) are merged into one, integrated into one phenomenon. Can this tell us something about the question if a material object (like the brain, or any structure in the brain) can be self-aware? 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. In a hypothetical universe where only a lone object exists (for example think of a lone eye), this could never observe itself, since it does not have the capacity to relay it’s own image to itself. This shows that a material object lacks the required quality of observer and observed integrated into one, meaning that consciousness can never consist of merely such an object.

Here is where you start having problems...what about a mirror+eye system? The eye can see the mirror, it can see itself, the only thing it can't see is the back of the eye And the existence of an unconscious means that we aren't conscious of everything in our brains. Why can't we have a similar partial, material, self-recording device?

There is however another phenomenon related to the brain that looks promising in explaining the origin of consciousness, which is the bio-electric magnetic field created by the brain, since any electric field is also an integrated whole (different waves can overlap and in this way, be one).

This is not a credible theory in the slightest, so I won't bother your attacks on it in the next paragraph.

An example of a huge change in the electric field of the brain caused by internal factors is provided by people who are advanced at meditation. They can shut down large parts of their brain activity, while still being as conscious as ever. Some can even “meditate” their brainwaves to a state of nearly pure delta-waves. This is comparable to deep sleep, a state where only the brainstem remains largely active. People able to meditate this deep report remaining conscious, which is true because how else would they decide to stop meditating? That clearly is a conscious decision. If consciousness arises from the electric field of the brain, this would all be very weird, since it would mean again that very different electric fields can yield consciousness (mixed brainwave activity as opposed to pure delta waves).

Hmm interesting. Reference please?

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. They still have the same property of consciousness, and can be as conscious as any “normal” human being. If consciousness is indeed generated by the bio-electrical activity of the brain, that would be very weird, because a brain of that size will have a bio-electric field of totally different properties, due to the fact that it is generated by less and / or different brain matter than in individuals having a full brain.

I severely doubt this. People with brain damage think differently from people without it, this is a well-demonstrated fact. As for whether or not they're conscious...what would a limited consciousness look like? I'm not sure consciousness could really come in degrees, unless you include memory or perception which I don't think you want to do. Thus, if consciousness was a brain phenomenon (not big electrical fields, but interactions between neurons), then we should expect it to be present up to a certain level of damage, at which point it would stop being present. This is what is seen.

As for links, you can't post them as links yet, but try posting them with spaces so that they aren't real links. It should allow you to give the text.

 

[Jeff Corey]

A lot of stuff that sounds like it came from unreliable sources. That's why you need references. You know, like a real research paper?

 

[Xetrov]

Thank you all so far for your replies.

Cute article, Xetrov!

Can you provide references, including your own credentials?

Thanx!

I have no credentials. I wrote an anthropological thesis to conclude my university studies. I merely write articles to express my ideas, feelings and thoughs. And because this forum is full of critical people, I dared to post it here so that perhaps I can learn something more, or gain some new insights, or whatever (I generally like discussion).

Putting the "first cause" logical fallacies of your argument aside, there is plenty of potential for self awareness in purely physical structures.

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

Much like the joy of a sunny day is an independent fundamental property intrinsic to existence and experience apart from photons and atoms I suppose.

No, I was merely giving a conclusion to my reasoning based on the arguments I gave (I don’t see consciousness as something made out of or consisting of energy/matter). Hence the conclusion. Much like the four basic forces of nature are also fundamental properties of the universe, and space and time. I just add consciousness to that, and add that it seems to be rather independent on top.

I experienced about five days of "enlightenment" or "satori" about twenty years ago (I'll probably get around to posting something on it someday), and it was intense and elevating and all that, but it was ultimately trivial. It was a state of consciousness without words; the internal monologue was turned off, and I experienced my surroundings directly, without mental commentary or exercising anything like conscious cognition--moving from one moment to the next, totally absorbed in sensation without thought in the present moment.

Big whoop. It was a terrific "high" (and remember, I survived the 60s), but it was meaningless, literally. Meaning requires thought, and thought requires words. It was an animal state of consciousness that was subjectively intense and involving, but without significance..

First off thanks for your kind reply. You had an interesting experience there, back then. I would be very interested in learning more about it. I wonder now though, what about direct emotion? While you were thoughtless, did you feel? Because I have experienced the same state of being and during it, I let myself guide by feelings. Like if I want to eat something or drink something, I would not literally think “I am hungry”, I would merely feel that I want to eat and feel what I want to eat, and then act on it, without making words in my mind. Kind of like emotions/thoughts/ideas without words. That is why I do not agree on your assessment that meaning requires thought. Normally yes, but in some instances it seems to be able to skip thought and especially words altogether. And I don’t see it as an animal state of consciousness, because I see consciousness as an unchangeable object that merely is and reflects all that we experience, hence all consciousness is the same, only that which we, others, animals etc, are conscious of, is different.

Oh and thanks for the books you mentioned, I might take a look at them. I am by the way, contrary to what people will think of me now probably, also a firm atheist in that I really do not believe in any major or minor deity / power that has (omnipotent) powers etc.

Is consciousness related to what the majority of people refer to when they use the word consciousness? If so, you've got an objective, non-circular definition.

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.

Not sure that's exactly what they mean, there are other things brains do besides thought, but in any case it isn't my view so I won't defend it...

What I mean is that there are many people of the opinion there is no “hard problem” in consciousness.

Here is where you start having problems...what about a mirror+eye system? The eye can see the mirror, it can see itself, the only thing it can't see is the back of the eye And the existence of an unconscious means that we aren't conscious of everything in our brains. Why can't we have a similar partial, material, self-recording device?

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.

Hmm interesting. Reference please?

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.

I severely doubt this. People with brain damage think differently from people without it, this is a well-demonstrated fact. As for whether or not they're conscious...what would a limited consciousness look like? I'm not sure consciousness could really come in degrees, unless you include memory or perception which I don't think you want to do. Thus, if consciousness was a brain phenomenon (not big electrical fields, but interactions between neurons), then we should expect it to be present up to a certain level of damage, at which point it would stop being present. This is what is seen.

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?

A lot of stuff that sounds like it came from unreliable sources. That's why you need references. You know, like a real research paper?

I will try to include more references. But I did not do that because it stated I was not allowed to do so! Besides this, my article is very obviously nowhere even close to a real research paper, and also does not intend to. It is a personal exploration into the philosophy of consciousness, and never did I ever state it’s a research paper. This does not mean I don’t want to be serious though, so that’s why I will add some more references if I can find them.

For now, a few links to show people who are conscious with reduced brain size (and no, this is not scientific material, it is just to show that it actually exists, unless these reports are fake, which I highly doubt). I removed the dots in the links, please add them yourself.

www metacafe com/watch/205285/amazing_kid_with_only_half_a_brain

www tvthrong co uk/extraordinary-people/extraordinary-people-living-with-half-a-brain-monday-october-1

 

[cyborg]

No, I was merely giving a conclusion to my reasoning based on the arguments I gave (I don’t see consciousness as something made out of or consisting of energy/matter).

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 - like a sunny day is a set of physical configurations involving fusing hydrogen and a small rocky planet with a oxygen rich atmosphere or the feeling of joy you have at it is a set of physical configurations involving a small spongy organ and the various chemicals released in it as it receives information about the aforementioned physical configuration - no, it's some fundamental thing like a quark, photon etc... or some dimension of the universe in which "things" are placed.

I just add consciousness to that, and add that it seems to be rather independent on top.

Independent? What does that even mean?

Words are easy to string together in meaningless configurations.

 

[Dancing David]

Are you sure you read the threads on consciousness here?

Hiya, welcome to the forum!


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.

Secondly and the point that I would ask you to address is the following:

Where is there consciousness independent of a brain?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Welcome to the forum, Xetrov.

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.

There are two different brain regions that underly "eye" and "mirror", but it is not proper to speak of them as separate.

On what grounds do you propose that having different brain regions that underly these functions negates the possibility of integrated experience? We have separate brain regions for sight and language, but reading is an integrated 'whole' experience.

The mirror neuron system is one possibility in which observer and observed can become one. It simply requires higher order processing for such a "thing" to emerge.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Okay dokey, size is not what matters, a mouse has what we will generally label as consciousness.

However there are 'levels of consciousness". What is the difference between you when you are aroused and alert, bored and drowsy and asleep or in a coma?


Second there are a huge number of interactions that occur which we conflate with the term consciousness.

Before we can have this vague and ephemeral thing called consciousness there are a huge number of precursors.

There is sensation, which is the interaction of receptors that interact with the external, internal world and our nervous system. There is sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, kinesthetic and vestibular for starters. Sight comes from changes in chemicals in the rods and cones that cause neurons to fire. Sound comes from changes in receptors in the inner ear. Taste comes from the chemical interaction of receptors in the mouth and nasal area. Smell comes from receptors in the nasal area. Touch comes from various receptors in the skin, and I believe there are different kinds. Kinesthetic is a combined sense, it comes from some skin receptors and I believe some internal receptors in the joints and muscles (I could be very wrong). Vestibular is a combined sense, it involves structures in the ear that sense motion and is combined with vision.

Then there are things like the sensation of hunger, thirst, sore, pain and ‘being tired’, mainly made up of the primary senses. There are also weird combinations like the perception of arousal and calmness. (The emotions are not even here yet, they involve the contextual framework provided by cognition.)

So here at the start we have thousands and thousands of chemical interactions that occur to have senses, we have the sense receptors and then we have the signal that they send to the CNS. In vision and some other senses there is even some preprocessing that goes into the way the signals are generated.
And again neuro transmission is biochemical in nature it involves two things, the phase shift in the membrane channels of the primary axon (self transmission) and then the release of neurotransmitters that interact with the secondary cell. It is not ‘electrical’ like the transmission of a phone signals.

So in the ‘simple’ case of sensation we have hundreds of thousands of receptors cells that then feed a signal to the transmission system. Then we have hundreds of thousands of cells that carry this signal to the brain for processing through things like the optic nerve and the peripheral nervous system.

So before we can have the verbal cognition “Yum that cookie tastes good.” We already have to have this incredible network of cells to sense the texture and taste and smell of the cookie.

If we break the chain any where in the line we will not have sensation, color blindness or neuropathy for example.

So do you see where I am headed here, everything that we conflate with the rubric ‘consciousness’ is dependant in the extreme on the biology of the body.

It goes on from there, the brain manufactures perception from the sensations, etc. . .

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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?

Actually consciousness does come in degrees. I haven't read your initial article fully, so I will need to do so in order to see how you have defined it, but we use the word consciousness to refer to many different things. There are at least three, if not more, "levels" of consciousness. There is the state of being awake as opposed to being unconscious/asleep/comatose; there is actual awareness of surroundings; and there is the reflective type of higher order thinking in which we may contemplate the meaning of life and the meaning of self.

Each of these "levels" of consciousness are sub served by different brain regions acting in harmony in a normally functioning human. We can be awake but not aware or alert and unable to form higher order thoughts. We can be awake and aware of our surroundings but not capable of higher order thoughts. Or we can have all three functioning with some of the contents of consciousness removed -- for instance, language or memory function. Or we can function as integrated 'wholes' in the absence of any brain injury.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, from a materialistic perspective, here's where I think you have gone wrong, if you wish negative feedback.

First, you have seemingly defined 'consciousness' as a thing, a space. I think that is wrong. It is not a 'thing', but an action, a behavior. If analyzed, what we 'see' in consciousness is an inter-relation of ideas and concepts, even the ability to think about thinking and be aware of our awareness. This is not a 'thing' nor does it take place properly in a 'space'. It 'is' a process.

We do not 'have consciousness', we conscious. It really should be a verb. If it were, I think it might pose fewer problems for us.

You then posit the brain as a material object, like a rock. But the body, while being a material object, is capable of physical action. For instance, we run. But what is 'running'? It is an interaction of various parts that translate into motion through space. You cannot point to a 'thing' that is 'running' (because 'running' is not a thing, but a process). You can point to objects engaged in the process of running, however. I think a large part of the problem we have discussing consciousness is an artifact of our particular language.

Consciousness amounts to the same thing. It 'is' a relation of cognitive parts that translates into a mental projection of awareness of awareness. It is an action, not a material "thing" that requires a separate mirror to see. The process of consciousness 'contains' its own mirror.

We know of higher order neurons that have been labelled 'mirror neurons' (I assume for this discussion that you know about them since they are becoming fairly common knowledge now). Suppose that we have mirror neurons that mirror internally the mirror neurons that respond to external actions in the environment. That could serve as the substrate for consciousness.

There is one other aspect of brain function that is often overlooked in these discussions and that is the relay loop. When we describe neuron function, we often simply to the level of single neuron firing with neurotransmitter release and interaction between neurons. While that is an accurate portrayal of a brain process, it does not really describe the fundamental way that neurons are linked together in our brains (except on the most basic and least informative level). They are seemingly linked in relay loops, constantly comparing information from the external and internal environments in order to help us survive. Look closely at a simple system (which is unfortunately very complex even though it is a simple system) like the cerebellum and what you will see is a stream of sensory information from the limbs being compared to higher order sensory information from the eyes communicating with motor output to correct the precise localization of movement. We do the same thing in our corteses -- our brain structure is based on constant looping of information from 'higher' to 'lower' levels and from analogous region to analogous region. We know that we have higher order neurons that activate only with very high level inputs -- the 'Clinton' cell, 'mirror neurons'. All the brain need do is integrate one other level of mirror neurons in a looping structure with mirror neurons that interact with the outside environment and we should be able to see the same integrated self-aware processes that we label 'consciousness'.

 

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Fnord
Cute article, Xetrov!

Can you provide references, including your own credentials?

Thanx!

I have no credentials... {SNIP!}

'Nuff Sed!

 

[Xetrov]

'Nuff Sed!

OK well I will still have to read all the other replies since my first reply, but this really pissed me off. Wtf. I have no credentials, so who cares? Are you trying to be funny here, because I don't get the joke really. Am I less because I dont have any credentials? Could you maybe quit the superior attitude please, because that's what this is starting to look like to me. Is this the way you deal with new people who come to this forum? New people who dare to expose their own viewppoints, knowing this will cause probably a storm of arguments? New people who are willing to discus? I don't know how this looks to the other old regulars on the forum, but let me tell you as a newbie here, this is pure arrogance, and makes me feel totally unwelcome here... I am ready to just leave and let this be. Yes I have no credentials, and yeah, so maybe I am a stupid moron who doesn't know ****. But this just pisses me off. Thanx for the welcome, but in this way I dont really feel like replying anymore.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK well I will still have to read all the other replies since my first reply, but this really pissed me off. Wtf. I have no credentials, so who cares? Are you trying to be funny here, because I don't get the joke really. Am I less because I dont have any credentials? Could you maybe quit the superior attitude please, because that's what this is starting to look like to me. Is this the way you deal with new people who come to this forum? New people who dare to expose their own viewppoints, knowing this will cause probably a storm of arguments? New people who are willing to discus? I don't know how this looks to the other old regulars on the forum, but let me tell you as a newbie here, this is pure arrogance, and makes me feel totally unwelcome here... I am ready to just leave and let this be. Yes I have no credentials, and yeah, so maybe I am a stupid moron who doesn't know ****. But this just pisses me off. Thanx for the welcome, but in this way I dont really feel like replying anymore.

Please let me apologize for Fnord. We are not all like that. I think he was only trying to be funny, but it was unnecessary.

 

[Xetrov]

Thanks Ichneumonwasp, I'm sorry I got so angry. I guess it just touched a wrong "vibe" in me or so, since I was trying to start a honest discussion here, but still...

By the way, there's also such a huge amount of replies already now that I'd probably take a while to reply to you all... I have more to do than that . I was like maybe 1 or 2 people will give some arguments, but it's grown to like 10 or so already ... so I'll just see what time I can make tomorrow and what answers I can com up with, but please be patient.