On Consciousness

[Soapy Sam]

Regarding the poll: Options 1 & 2 together do not cover all reasonable options.
It's perfectly possible that consciousness is a product of living brains, of organic chemistry, of particular processes which require the sorts of activity we already know to happen in brains- without requiring any mysterious substance or unknown process. It's also perfectly possible none of this is exactly reproducible in software or inorganic hardware.
So far, all the structures we know to display consciousness are alive, were grown (rather than built ) and are the end products of a chemical process known to have operated continuously for over 3 billion years.
Any of these facts may be critical.
Or none of them may be.
At the present level of understanding, there is plenty room for doubt. That gap will, probably, shrink. None of this requires dualism or mysticism.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Your sopistry is appalling.

No, perception unrelated to sensations are dangerous, this is bogus. Most people with schizophrenia find their hallucination frightening, terrifying and distressing.

Two people with schizophrenia do not have over lapping perceptual realities, they do not share hallucinations in common. They both have hallucinations , yes. the hallucinations are different. So you are saying that two radio stations are the same experience, they are not?

Therefore the person who does not have false perceptions is not 'schizophrenic' by any means, they just don't have false perceptions. You are saying that two people listening to radios on different stations would say that the person without a radio is REALLY the person with the radio.

The annoying thing about this post is that I was going to add a caveat that no two peoples symptoms would be exactly the same, as I was aware my post may give this impression.

Still does not change the point I am making.

Your recent posts seem to reflect a lack of coherent forethought and are just off the cuff 'what if' material.

Glad you noticed, I've run out of new things to say.

 

[Dancing David]

The annoying thing about this post is that I was going to add a caveat that no two peoples symptoms would be exactly the same, as I was aware my post may give this impression.

Still does not change the point I am making.




Glad you noticed, I've run out of new things to say.

Your point is still wrong the person without schizophrenia does not have schizophrenia.

You are still wrong.

In your scenario would this happen?

"You don't here the voices of the spirits telling you the terrible things? You do not wish the spirits would leave you alone? You do not wish you were dead, that must be terrible for you to not suffer. Surely the fact the people like you do not want to kill themselves is a burden beyond bearing"

Your ignorance of living with schizophrenia is appalling.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I say again their perceptual realities would not be the same so my choice of example was just a poor choice. My knowledge of schizophrenia is quite complete having lived surrounded by a family grounded in mental health charities as a profession. I have no idea what your above post means, it seems to be implying something I never said, sorry.

We were actually talking about drug induced changes in perception, which are far more universal in effects on perception between different people than endogenous mental health perceptual changes.

 

[Dancing David]

I say again their perceptual realities would not be the same so my choice of example was just a poor choice. My knowledge of schizophrenia is quite complete having lived surrounded by a family grounded in mental health charities as a profession. I have no idea what your above post means, it seems to be implying something I never said, sorry.

We were actually talking about drug induced changes in perception

No, you said schizophrenia.

, which are far more universal in effects on perception between different people than endogenous mental health perceptual changes.

This what you said Zeuzz,

I don't think there is. Schizophrenia is an interesting example, if two people with perceptual realities similar to each other, yet schizophrenic in nature, were to meet a 'normal' person then the normal persons perspective on reality could be counted as a hallucination as the average perception would be the schizophrenic one.

You said that the person not living with schizophrenia would be the one judges as schizophrenic. That is an abuse of the term schizophrenia that shows an appealing ignorance of what it is like to be living with it.

So the people in the two person reality of schizophrenia have what?
Auditory hallucinations that are 98% terrifying and distressing, and make the person uncomfortable or wish they were dead.
Thought disorders that cause disjointed thoughts, loose associations, delays and derails in responses to questions.
Catalepsy, withdrawal, water toxicity, lack of motivation and inability to care for ones self.

That is the common perceptual reality of schizophrenia, are they really going to view the person without those things as being someone who suffers from a mental illness?

Do you really think that they would feel the person who does not hear the scary voices is schizophrenic?

Ask your family members Zeuzz, what is living with schizophrenia like, does someone with a two minute delay in response to questions really have much of a coherent mind set, much less the ability to determine another person is mentally ill because they do not have such delays and thought disorders? How about those with catalepsy or death from suicide?

There are times where you can create false parity Zeuzzz and this is one of them.

Does this sentence really make sense

"I don't think there is. Diabetes is an interesting example, if two people with perceptual realities similar to each other, yet diabetic in nature, were to meet a 'normal' person then the normal persons perspective on reality could be counted as high blood sugar as the average perception would be the diabetic one."

The issue I have is two fold:
-you show an amazing indifference and ignorance of what it actually means to live with schizophrenia and act as though the actual experience of schizophrenia is trivial different from other people.
-hallucination is defined by the presence of perceptions unrelated to sensation, You then say that the lack of those would then be the equivalent of their presence.

Your off the cuff sophistry shows an appalling ignorance of what schizophrenia is like for the people living with it, it also like saying a society of people with epilepsy would define the person without seizures as epileptic.

Your statements about schizophrenia are based upon ignorance and trivialization of the actual experience of people with schizophrenia and some sophomoric attempt at false parity to promote your view of the benefit of drug induced experiences.

A society of people with depression is not going to say that the healthy person is depressed. That is the equivalent of what you said.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Afraid not; sounds just like a repeat of the usual.

Except for telepathy, which is speculative, the others on your list (subjective experience, creativity, and maybe deep thinking, although I don't know how that differs from ordinary thinking) are real.

Of course if people invent metaphysics to explain them they had better be sure the metaphysics they invent really explains and has some basis beyond speculation. Many who think such mental phenomena are unexplainable leave it at that.

Regardless of who invented the term, I think "woo" is an insulting ad hominem and as such does not belong in reasoned discussion.

An ad hominem is to attack the person instead of the argument.

If I called you a woo, that would be ad hom. I don't think anyone in this discussion called you a woo.

If I suggested an explanation for subjective experience, creativity, and maybe deep thinking based on pseudoscience (e.g. quantum consciousness, dark matter, EM columns) is woo, that's descriptive, because there's no evidence for it -- just intuition. It's your choice to take that personally, but it's not an attack on you as a person.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, you said schizophrenia.


This what you said Zeuzz,


You said that the person not living with schizophrenia would be the one judges as schizophrenic. That is an abuse of the term schizophrenia that shows an appealing ignorance of what it is like to be living with it.

So the people in the two person reality of schizophrenia have what?
Auditory hallucinations that are 98% terrifying and distressing, and make the person uncomfortable or wish they were dead.
Thought disorders that cause disjointed thoughts, loose associations, delays and derails in responses to questions.
Catalepsy, withdrawal, water toxicity, lack of motivation and inability to care for ones self.

That is the common perceptual reality of schizophrenia, are they really going to view the person without those things as being someone who suffers from a mental illness?

Do you really think that they would feel the person who does not hear the scary voices is schizophrenic?

Ask your family members Zeuzz, what is living with schizophrenia like, does someone with a two minute delay in response to questions really have much of a coherent mind set, much less the ability to determine another person is mentally ill because they do not have such delays and thought disorders? How about those with catalepsy or death from suicide?

There are times where you can create false parity Zeuzzz and this is one of them.

Does this sentence really make sense

"I don't think there is. Diabetes is an interesting example, if two people with perceptual realities similar to each other, yet diabetic in nature, were to meet a 'normal' person then the normal persons perspective on reality could be counted as high blood sugar as the average perception would be the diabetic one."

The issue I have is two fold:
-you show an amazing indifference and ignorance of what it actually means to live with schizophrenia and act as though the actual experience of schizophrenia is trivial different from other people.
-hallucination is defined by the presence of perceptions unrelated to sensation, You then say that the lack of those would then be the equivalent of their presence.

Your off the cuff sophistry shows an appalling ignorance of what schizophrenia is like for the people living with it, it also like saying a society of people with epilepsy would define the person without seizures as epileptic.

Your statements about schizophrenia are based upon ignorance and trivialization of the actual experience of people with schizophrenia and some sophomoric attempt at false parity to promote your view of the benefit of drug induced experiences.

A society of people with depression is not going to say that the healthy person is depressed. That is the equivalent of what you said.

You are confused. Let me try to restate what I meant. I've already con-seeded it's a bad hypothetical example.

If 90% of the worlds population perceived their actions dictated to them by pink dragons in the clouds then the remaining 10% who did not perceive such dragons would be labelled mentally ill people by the majority.

It's really nothing more or less than that. It's hypothetical.

Same goes for if 90% of the world was constantly under the influence of MDMA due to endogenous brain chemistry then the 10% who weren't that loved up would be seen as sociopaths/psychopaths by contrast, even though to us they are functioning normally, just in a far too empathogenic world.

 

[Dancing David]

Zeuzzz, that is better but you stated something that was wrong.

I am not confused you made a statement about schizophrenia that was ignorant.

You make assumptions about the long term use of MDMA as well, and the people who do not perceive the dragons may be considered as lacking something, not having a positive condition of mental illness.

Stop playing with the mental illness terminology, it is making some point about mental illness that is incorrect.

People are not judged as mentally ill because they differ from society, they are judged mentally ill because they have a decrease in functioning and seek treatment. You are adding to the stigma of mental illness with your broad pronouncements which sound very much like the pseudo science of Szasz.

being eccentric is a social condition having a mental illness is not and you are still wrong.

 

[Mark Maloney]

Dear James Randi Educational Foundation, and all posters herein,

Thank you for allowing me to join your forum. This is my first post.

I am exhausted after reading hundreds of posts, most of which did not deal with the issue, but rather injected creative notions in place of substantive facts. Consciousness is memory. The more memory you have, the more consciousness you have. When you see an apple, it is your memory (learned experience) that defines what it is. If you have only seen green apples, your consciousness of apples is limited to only green apples. The more experience you have with different kinds of apples, the more memory (consciousness) you have about apples.

Most of the brain is memory storage. The amount of intelligence one has depends on how much collective memory is integrated into identification of objects or events. Cognition is an ongoing process of learning and building integrated memory. The more you learn on any topic, the more conscious you become. In other words, consciousness is collective experience.

Other words for consciousness are sentience, awareness and knowledge. A newborn has very little consciousness; as it grows, it acquires experience (memory) and thus consciousness. It is not aware of life until it experiences life, which takes time to acquire. Consciousness grows as the child grows. A child that has not experienced green apples will not be conscious of green apples. When the child does experience green apples, green apples become part of its collective consciousness. Experience builds and defines consciousness. The more memory we have, the more sentient we become.

Consciousness is nature's survival strategy. The more we are aware of our environment, the greater our ability to navigate and survive it. Consciousness integrates and coordinates environment, memory, and response to form the best survival strategy. Being sentient has its advantages.

Consciousness (memory) is whatever you put into it. A child taught religious explanations for everything has a religious consciousness about the world. A child taught bigotry has a prejudicial consciousness. Consciousness is a learned lens of how to view and behave within the environment at large.

Environment determines our state of consciousness. What we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel integrates with our memory to produce a cascade of conscious perceptions of the environment. Consciousness is a reactive response to stimulus. While walking down a street, if a car coming towards you is driving erratically, your consciousness is redirected to pay attention to its activity; and ready to react to get out of its way. If at the same time you hear a gunshot to your left, your consciousness is redirected towards that environmental event. Sensory takes in data, memory defines it, and consciousness coordinates your behavior towards it.

Although this explanation is a simplistic overview of consciousness, memory causes consciousness. Without memory definition, there is no consciousness.

Sincerely Mark Maloney

 

[Jeff Corey]

Experimental psychologists have been studying memory for about 150 years - how it is acquired, stored and retrieved. We have even studied it in other animals, such as pigeons, without referring to consciousness at all.
Whatever "consciousness" is, it isn't just memory.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Consciousness is memory.

Welcome, Mark!

I used to believe that. There's a terrific lecture on YouTube in which the idea of memory being necessary for consciousness is dismissed. The lecture was referenced in this thread. Let's see if I can find it...

I observed that, if you didn't remember being conscious, then it was the same (for you) as if you were unconscious. I don't believe that anymore. It just means you forgot that your were conscious.

Found it! Don't have time to locate the time stamp of the refutation of memory as essential to consciousness, but the lecture is awesome and I hope you enjoy it:

 

[Wowbagger]

Consciousness is memory.

A lot of "ingredients" goes into consciousness. There is no doubt that memory is an important one. But, it is not the only one.

There must also exist systems that report on the current (as close as possible) state of other bodily systems, and a section or two of bodily mapping in which a focus of thought can be sustained for moments of time.
Among other things.

There is a very good book I would recommend called Self Comes to Mind, by Antonio Damasio, that spells out what the ingredients are, how they evolved, and how they emerge into a conscious state. At least in theory, according to the best evidence science has to offer.

We don't know everything about how consciousness works, yet, but we do know a LOT more than most people realize.
And, (just as a small warning) some of it can be quite freaky and scary, for some people.

 

[Dancing David]

Welcome Mark Maloney

 

[Zeuzzz]

I would define life differently to consciousness. Both are intrinsically hard to define, but I've had a go.

Well if you won't define it [life], I will.

Most things in this universe, if left alone, simply decay and disintegrate. Biological systems by contrast appear from nowhere, then organize themselves, then evolve grow and expand.

This leads to the conception of two opposing arrows of time: the behavior of inanimate matter pointing towards entropy increase and therefore disorder increase, and the behavior of biological systems pointing the other way by building increasingly complex structures of order.

I have found this by far the easiest conceptual way to understand life scientifically.

In terms of consciousness [especially human consciousness] I would say it's the ability of things to live in the present moment by drawing from past experience, and also to predict future events based on past experience. In the case of humans we seem to have evolved highly complex (compared to other life on Earth) memory recall of past experience from which to consciously draw from, making our consciousness more effective in numerous way than other Earth based animal life. Also the seeking of altered states of consciousness in our species has likely opened the doors of perception far wider than other life. However since we lack the skill-set and language to communicate with other species and nature in general adequately it is hard to make such comparisons fully scientifically objective at this point in time.

 

[Mark Maloney]

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for your feedback. Consciousness is a complex subject.

I watched Dr. Koch's presentation, I suspect that you did not pay much attention when you did, because if you had, you would have realized that he was not talking about dissociating memory as the cause of consciousness, he was talking about the neural physics (hard wiring) that is associated with various states of consciousness. He did talk about memory deficits from various types of brain damage, but only regarding the circuitry aspects of brain functions. He is working on mapping aspects of mice brains in hope to develop artificial bio-neural-circuitry; he is not a cognitive scientist. I was not impressed with his presentation; he was scattered brain, dissociative, and non-contextual. He may work well in the lab and write good papers, but he was dysfunctional in giving his presentation. Watch his presentation again and see for yourself.

After reviewing the video, I googled 'memory and consciousness' and spent an hour reading various papers on the subject. Your assertion that memory has been dismissed as the cause of consciousness is flat wrong. In fact, research is showing that memory does play a significant role in consciousness. Presently, academia only has elusive theories; they do not actually know what constructs consciousness, they talk about consciousness more in terms of what it does, but not how it occurs. The best answer that academia can provide at this moment is that consciousness is awareness, and that awareness has many states of consciousness. Sort-of-like-saying, energy is made of energy; they answer the question with the question.

My knowledge on consciousness stems from many years of research and thinking about it. I approached the concept of consciousness from many different perspectives, analyzing how sensory, memory, vision, emotions, cognitive development, sensory deprivation, neural physics, and a myriad of brain damage effects, to formulate my perception of consciousness. What I discovered is that memory defines consciousness at its most fundamental level. If you think about it, everything that your sensory experiences must first be defined by memory, before it can formulate into a definition of what it is.

The most interesting aspects of consciousness is vision. When you analyze what vision is, you can clearly see that it is pure memory generating the perception of light and colors. For a more detailed explanation, you can go to epluribusunum56.com/light_colors.html, under the title "The Nature of Light and Colors;" I guarantee that you will find the article quite enlightening. As well, if you read "The Nature of Dreams" and "The Nature of Time," they may help you further understand how the brain processes data. No doubt, you will find my perspectives are outside the box, I do not ask anyone to believe them, only to think about them.

Just because I believe it - does not make it so; securitize everything I say, you never know, I might have missed something crucial to the understanding of consciousness. One mind is never as smart as two...

Sincerely, Mark Maloney

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you think about it, everything that your sensory experiences must first be defined by memory, before it can formulate into a definition of what it is.

Not to detract from your other points, but there is increasing evidence some behavioral traits can be inherited outside of genetics. This BBC documentary might provide you an hour of food for thought on the matter, it's very new data and often referred to as epigenetics.

Anecdotally, my grandad came round from a stroke with a French accent for a few days when he spoke English, was bizarre, the doctors even noticed it and noted it down, and when I looked back in my family tree we had a french ancestor two generations back.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes.

(and I win by greek logic, btw)*

* Also deductive logic **

** And empirical science too ***

*** I challenge you to say otherwise. ****

**** Over and out.

 

[Zeuzzz]

This will be a short case in point, courtesy or wiki. Foreign accent syndrome^WP.

I notice my grandad was not included in the meta analysis. So I have deduced from this that cases of this are generally under-reported, since I have first hand evidence in the case of direct autopsy data following a lifetime medical data inquiry from his shortly following death the following year.

 

[Wowbagger]

Mark Maloney:
You sound very similar to how I explained things when I was 15 years younger than I am now!

This whole web site is something I could have scribbled out in my 20's:

epluribusunum56.com/light_colors.html

But, there are two types of intellectual maturity:

The first one occurs when you have finally figured out how the Universe works!

The second one occurs when you realize you were wrong about a ton of stuff about how the Universe works.

You are NOT completely wrong. Just a tad new to the wonderful world of science!

For example:

What I discovered is that memory defines consciousness at its most fundamental level.

Science has already passed this sort of theory through many empirical tests, and found it lacking.

Someone might have excellent memory recall abilities, but are not as aware of their surroundings as anyone else. Some other people are very well aware of their surroundings, but have terrible memory.

As I said before: Memory certainly is an important part of cosciousness. But, consciousness can better be described as an emergent system of many parts: Memory, neural body mapping, sustained emotion-based contexts to frame ideas, etc.


I think I will also comment on a random bit of gibberish I found on the site you linked us to: http://epluribusunum56.com/technological.html

These amazing things give us the impression that science has a firm understanding of the fundamental elements of nature. However, they are misleading; these things are superficial impressions of technological knowledge. Science has no idea what electrons/photons are made of, or why they do what they do. Scientific knowledge is limited to describing and measuring what things do; and building devices through trial and error that utilize their specific behavior.

This is kinda wrong. While it is true that LOTS of stuff were found through trial and error, especially in the early days of science, when there was a LOT of so-called "low-hanging fruit". We can do a LOT better, today!

Science STRIVES to obtain a more fundamental understanding of nature. Good science can predict outcomes, so that one has to do less trial-and-error. You can't make predictions, unless you know what you are talking about.

And, you can't know what you are talking about, until you have a fundamental understanding of it.

Granted, we don't know everything. We might not know, empirically, what photons are made of (except "energy"). But, we also have brilliant theories that can strive to take it to the next level, such as String Theory and M-Theory.

M-Theory might only be theoretical, but it does paint a picture of what photons are "made of", so we do have something to work off of.

Welcome to the Forum!

You will, eventually, get used to having ideas ripped apart, around here.