This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Where do you think consciousness comes from?
Science can give answers to many things, but consciousness seems to be an unsolved mystery. Why do you think people have consciousness? Where does it come from? Do you think it can be created artificially? How?
You may answer based on anything you know, it does not have to be a proven fact. Thank you.
Topics:
consciousness human mind self awareness
Thomas Jones 100+
Edward MItten came along and consolidated the theories into one which we now call "M Theory."
Essentially, the five competing theories were looking at the same "thing" but from different perspectives so they were each describing facets of a single phenomenon. Witten just aligned them.
I think a similar thing happens when we discuss "consciousness." Everyone looks at it from their own perspective, sees whatever they see, and describes that. Except, in some cases, people do not even describe what they see, they describe what they think MIGHT be there ... which is, in some cases, "nothing" ... and that adds a degree of complexity that is very difficult to integrate or align with.
We love explanations.
But we may have to accept that, for some things, there are no explanations.
That does not mean we cannot gain a deep and rich understanding of, and appreciation for life and it's myriad manifestations.
Nor do we have to stop looking for explanations. And we should NOT stop if we find an EXPLANATION we think is perfect.
No explanation is perfect. (Think about it.)
Regardless of where it comes from, our relationship with consciousness (or experience) is a personal one. There will NEVER be a genius who solves the consciousness "problem" for all of us anymore than there will be someone who comes along and falls in love, or drinks water for all of us. Some things we have to do alone. Or not do at all.
In the article Lawrence provided a link for, Steven Pinker says, "I would argue that nothing gives life more purpose than the realization that every moment of consciousness is a precious and fragile gift."
And for those who think consciousness does not exist, I would add: that nothing gives life more purpose than the realization that every moment of experience is a precious and fragile gift.
Paul van Zoggel
A lot to 'know' here, somehow this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w
( Gnarls Barkley - Crazy ) song tells me all what I need to 'feel' about knowing consciousness ;)
Farrukh Yakubov 50+
Thank you!
Colleen Steen 500+
You brought forth a very interesting topic...thank you for that:>)
Thomas Jones 100+
Would you be willing to share with us what you have learned as a result of your inquiry?
Lawrence Trevanion
Pinker says he thinks it most likely (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html) that humans are not equipped to deal with the problems of consciousness but he nevertheless concedes the possibility that this theory "could be demolished when an unborn genius--a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness--comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us." Meanwhile Pinker himself is starting to propose (TED talk) that concrete language is the foundation of all our thinking!
So Pinker, I think, misses the crucial problem of conceptual change. The interesting question is not whether some yet unborn genius will solve the problem but rather - how many times has the problem been solved before?
Conceptual change in the past has been difficult and painful and some changes remain so - Darwin's notion that people are evolved objects for instance. I understand that the concept of zero rose and fell only to become re-established as uncontroversial. So it seems that we are capable of discarding valuable understandings and of remaining deaf to new understandings. This has been the case in the past. It is hard to why it would not be the case now.
The problem of consciousness is the problem of conceptual change. It is the problem of finding a culture in which the change can be received, understood and accepted. Dennett says people don't want to solve the problem of consciousness. He is obviously right. The question is, will this remain the cultural norm?
Colleen Steen 500+
You speak of "conceptual change that is the hard problem"..."humans are not equipped to deal with the problems of consciousness"..."conceptual change in the past has been difficult and painful"..."the problem of consciousness is the problem of conceptual change"...."it is the problem of finding a culture in which the change can be received, understood and accepted"..."...solve the problem of consciousness..."
Lawrence, consciousness is not a "problem"...it is a gift. Furthermore, it is not really difficult to understand and apply. You seem to be getting yourself bogged down in words, which is not necessary, and I understand it as a choice you make for yourself:>)
Thomas Jones 100+
I agree, the problem is not "consciousness" it is "conceptual change." When we hear something that does not conform to our concept, we reject, or discount it.
QUOTE: "The interesting question is not whether some yet unborn genius will solve the problem but rather - how many times has the problem been solved before?"
Exactly. Probably many people have solved "the problem," in times past - even now.
Unless we are willing to step out of our own models, the problems of "conceptual change" will remain.
Thomas Jones 100+
Good article, thanks for the link:
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html)
johnny cude
Thomas Jones 100+
After looking at the photo for a few minutes, we get a read out and it says there is heightened activity in the insula, anterior cingulate, caudate nucleus, and putamen. There is a concomitant decrease in activation of the amygdala, posterior cingulate, and the frontal, parietal, and temporal cortices on the right side. In addition certain biochemical networks are activated resulting in an increase in endorphins, dopamine, and a cocktail of other “drugs.”
This is a very good explanation of “something.”
Do you know what it is?
If you are a neuroscientist, you might recognize it as “love.” [And the “stimulus” mentioned in the first sentence is a picture of our beloved.]
Based on the description, could you guess what love feels like?
Now, tell me: What if you studied people who are "in love" for decades, and what if if you could recite this description forward, backwards, and in your sleep, if you could improve on it, add detail, correct mistakes, and, in effect, perfect “the description of love;” - what if you could explain love - would you know what love is?
No, of course not!
How do we “know” what love is?
We experience it.
Do we NEED the explanation to know what love is?
No, we do not.
Consciousness is a little like that.
Lawrence Trevanion
If we suppose that experience is what it is like for an object to perceive then when we communicate our experience in words the general form will be "I perceive X" where 'I' is the object that perceives. In your story the "I perceive X" consists of "I perceive the emotion(s) of love" (roughly) and "I perceive the mechanisms of perception" (very roughly - because we don't actually perceive the detailed mechanism but rather model, visualise, or perhaps 'mathematise' it). There is no inconsistency or difficulty in this in principle, well, no more than there is between seeing the computer screen and the mechanism of visual perception.
In saying "I perceive X", if we are able to deduce that X is real then we will say that X exists. If X is a thought (imagined language) we will say X does not exist - because it is imaginary. (This does not mean we don't perceive it!). Most importantly "I perceive X" does not lead to the notion "I have perceptions of X" - we are unable to say that perceptions exist at all and certainly not in the mind, brain, or anywhere else. Quite simply, there is no such thing as existent perceptions, no such thing as an existent mind, no such thing as existent consciousness - these concepts arise from a misunderstanding of perception.
When we communicate through an exchange of words (a process that occurs in the real) we depend on there being a shared understanding of reference. We do not communicate experience directly. Our strongest and most detailed reference comes from visual experience such that we can often effectively communicate an experience through description. Our language for emotions, by contrast, is blunt because their perception is private rather than shared.
Thomas Jones 100+
It is unlikely I would agree that consciousness does not exist - I might at some point because agreement and disagreement are cognitive functions; and, as we know, cognitive functions are somewhat unpredictable.
However, for me, consciousness is (to use your framework) an "object."
As you may have guessed, this is not my first discussion of consciousness. What I have noticed in such discussions is that, for many, the subject is "imaginary;" consciousness is perceived as something that "does not really exist" as in your worldview where consciousness is simply a word we use to describe an epiphenomenon or even less, a word we use to describe the description of an epiphenomenon. And, by the way, in many cases, I agree with you, it is.
But just because that is true most of the time, does not mean consciousness does not exist. If it exists (and I say it does) we have to look for it where it is.
We will not find water in a book about water; we have to look for water "where water is." (If we want to find it that is!)
We will not find water in descriptions of water; and we will not find consciousness in descriptions of (or even, in the conventional sense, experiences of) consciousness.
For others, when we discuss consciousness, there is a sense that it is real, a belief it is real, we could say and then, what is offered as "proof" is exactly what your are talking about which, as we know, is no proof at all.
I have been thinking about responding to you within your framework but it is well thought out, quite dense, and requires more time than I have at the moment. Maybe on the weekend. (I have no intention of changing your mind by the way.)
Lawrence Trevanion
Consciousness cannot be an object in the framework I propose. In "I perceive X" we may deduce X is an object (that it is real and exists) but this is a complex deduction. If we regard perception as mechanical it cannot make sense to say "I perceive consciousness", and it is probably wrong in any disciplined understanding of perception - because we usually think of consciousness as being consciousness OF something (even if we are not sure what). (Even consciousness of blueness is the perception of either a real or imaginary something that is blue.)
Thomas Jones 100+
But to take the next step and say, "Because that which you call consciousness is not consciousness, we can assert consciousness does not exist, ignores the possibility that "they" simply might not know what consciousness is. Believing something to be true and knowing something to be true are not the same thing.
And we can surmise that, as you say consciousness does not exist, you do not know what it is - if it exists at all (and I say it does.)
Lawrence Trevanion
If consciousness does not exist then it has nothing to do with phenomena. Calling it an epiphenomenon is a contradiction.
I discount the possibility that the assertion that consciousness does not exist arises from it being incorrectly (or differently) identified. Consciousness is identified as a conceptual error - the mistake of progressing from "I perceive X" to "I have perceptions of X". Furthermore, the problems and confusions that arise concerning it can be deduced from this error.
When we interact in the world everything we do is in accord with the idea that we perceive it. But when we THINK about our perception we very properly distinguish the real world from our perception of the real world - it is clear to us that we have a limited perspective and that we make mistakes. So when we think about our perception, instead of saying "I perceive X" (where X is something real) as we would naturally do, we conceive that the real world is out there and that we have something about the world in ourselves. We now suppose, not that we perceive X but that we have perceptions of X. And in so doing we confound our notion of perception because we are no longer sure if we perceive X or whether we perceive our perceptions of X; we are not sure if perception is a mechanical process in the real or whether it refers to the presence of perceptions in the mind.
Interpreting experience as "I perceive X" where 'I' is the object that perceives and perception is a process in the real means that we do not progress from "I perceive X" to "I have perceptions of X" and the distinction between the real and our perception of it is understood to be framed entirely in terms of "I perceive X" i.e. the real independent of our perception of the real is nevertheless framed in terms of our perception of the real.
In this understanding consciousness (the notion of existent perceptions) is not misunderstood or incorrectly identified. It is positively diagnosed as non-existent.
Thomas Jones 100+
[I am spending more time on this than I thought]
I understand this sentence will be problematic for you:
"If it exists (and I say it does) we have to look for it where it is."
"Looking for it where it is" maintains the pattern of "object that perceives" and perception (as experience) being misconstrued as consciousness.
Language has its limitations.
This might be a little closer to "the truth" - If consciousness exists (and I say it does) we have to look for it in a manner appropriate to the task. If we are going to leave the realm of philosophy, speculation, theory, and debate we must collapse the subject/object barrier. We will have to do this alone.
Lawrence Trevanion
Regarding the location of consciousness, I have noted in another comment the fallacy of locating it at the visual viewpoint. Objects have location and it makes sense to enquire into their location. But consciousness is not an object (it is not real or existent) so it doesn't have a location. We can do things to stop the brain perceiving but this does not mean there is something called consciousness that is in the brain.
'Experience' is a difficult concept. It does have clear links to consciousness. I use it as a floating term to indicate the subject at hand but I intend it to be as little theory-laden as possible. But once we do adopt a theory, once we leap, for example, to an understanding such as "people are objects that perceive" then we necessarily find ourselves reflecting back on what we mean by experience. If people are objects that perceive then experience comes to be regarded as a cumulation of "I perceive X" (so to speak). Consequently it would make no sense to say experience is an X in "I perceive X" i.e. we do not perceive it, and like consciousness we have no basis for saying it exists. Remember X exists if we perceive it and are able to deduce it is an object.
Thomas Jones 100+
[Okay, I admit it - I'm ignoring some of the other things I could be doing now and focussing on this discussion.]
I understand this sentence will also be problematic for you:
"I say it does."
Because "I" (in your worldview) is an object that perceives and as such anything it perceives, and describes based on that perception, is, to use my word, not yours, an "illusion" - not real.
I agree.
The challenge, of course, is that if we examine the world using ONLY your framework, it is not possible to understand the sentence, "I say it does" as anything other than meaningless babel.
So, if we wish to explore the possibility that the sentence, "I say it does" can have real meaning, we will have to, momentarily, put your worldview aside and "imagine" what would have to be true in order for, "I say it does" to have meaning. It cannot be done from within (my understanding of) your worldview.
Colleen Steen 500+
We cannot explore something new and different if we stay in our own worldview, or our own method of understanding or explaining. In order to experience something differently, we need to suspend our own beliefs/perceptions and explore beyond what we already think we know.
This is scientifically proven... I'm just having fun with myself and the use of my left hemisphere...LOL:>)
Lawrence Trevanion
I see no problem in your "I say it does". You are an object that perceives. You perceive a thought. You write it. I am an object that perceives. I see the writing. We share the same language therefore I understand it to some degree.
If people are objects that perceive then you are simply wrong to say that consciousness exists.
If you were to divorce consciousness from the concept of perception altogether and claim it means something else, then you would be altering the word beyond recognition - it would cease to be the topic of our discussion.
If you mean to say that assertions about private experience are correct and indisputable then I think you are wrong - because language concerns shared reference.
One of the absurdities of traditional language is that people will say the real exists, that imaginary things don't exist but that the perceptions of imaginary things do exist. Some people use 'exist' in such an undisciplined manner that they would be hard pressed to assert that there is anything that doesn't exist.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Hi Colleen,
I knew you were joking (I was playing along.)
[Here's my "policy:" I will always assume you have good intentions. But if you (or anyone) say something I interpret as confrontational, hurtful, or aggressive, I will ask. You won't have to guess. My intention is to communicate with respect (and sometimes humour) even if I disagree with an idea we are discussing. I will not say anything to intentionally hurt you (or anyone.)]
Thomas Jones 100+
Hi Colleen,
There's no need for an apology. I knew you were joking and was joking right back atcha.
See my earlier response (wherever it is ... this response hierarchy is a bit wonky.)
Thomas Jones 100+
Is that the one that is ... um... missing?
Well, they say the universe sprang from nothing, you know?
Colleen Steen 500+
It is part of the RIGHT hemisphere that was....um...."adjusted":>)
You see...that's what caused the balance. Although I was a right brain dominant person prior to the "adjustment", now I observe the left brain dominance some of the time, and it gives me pleasure...makes me smile...balance:>)
I do not suggest this method as a "normal" way to balance the right and left hemispheres:>)
I think/feel the universe sprang from consciousness...or...did consciousness spring from the universe...or...is it one and the same...universal consciousness?
Thomas Jones 100+
Yes, I agree, such "adjustments" should not be used in the normal course of events. Only in special cases.
Colleen Steen 500+
No I did NOT know you were dyslexic, and I apologize.
Thomas Jones 100+
I know.
Thomas Jones 100+
You say:
QUOTE: "If consciousness does not exist then it has nothing to do with phenomena. Calling it an epiphenomenon is a contradiction."
Okay, let's use another word or phrase for what happens in "the gap" ... how about "pseudophenomenon?" "Looping?" "Imagined consciousness?" "Interpretation of experience?"
QUOTE: "I discount the possibility that the assertion that consciousness does not exist arises from it being incorrectly (or differently) identified."
I know.
I agree; what you are describing is not consciousness. It is a misconception arising from "I have perceptions of X" being (mis)interpreted as consciousness. This description, this misconception or "pseudophenomenon" is not consciousness.
If you were describing "all that there is" (with regards to consciousness) I would have to agree with you, and accept that consciousness does not exists.
But you are not.
(It is obvious you think you are so it might be hard for you to accept that statement - how about we hold it as provisionally true?)
You are correctly identifying a common misconception (that, "I have perceptions of X," can be, and is, often misinterpreted as "consciousness;") and then you are asserting that because this "imagined consciousness" is not "consciousness," then consciousness does not exists.
Yes, what you are describing is not consciousness.
But you are not describing "all there is."
Consciousness is "something else."
I do not mean my "idea" of consciousness is different than your "idea" of consciousness so "let's talk about our ideas," I mean consciousness is something other than that which you are describing.
What you are describing (extremely well) is - in my worldview - what I sometimes call perception; sometimes, thought; or sometimes, content of awareness; and so on. And your description defines all of those brilliantly.
None of those are consciousness. And no amount of interpretation will make them so.
Consciousness is "something" else.
Lawrence Trevanion
You write of "the gap". What gap?
You are saying that my description does not account for all there is with regards to consciousness. Do you mean I have accounted for nothing of consciousness?
We appear to disagree about what 'consciousness' refers to, yet you say you are not claiming we have different ideas of consciousness, but rather that I have not described it. (The word 'idea' is problematic here because of its changed meaning.) You nevertheless do not attempt to clarify what consciousness is, so I guess you mean that consciousness is beyond description. It looks to me that you are making a transcendental claim and when asked to account for it will answer "I can't".
I offer two points.
When Berkeley observes that all perceptions are in the mind he means all experience without exception, thoughts, feelings, imaginations, sensations of the real, visceral sensations of self etc. This is a powerful unifying concept, and it accords entirely with the investigation of neuroscience into the mechanisms of perception. You appear to me to be trying to put consciousness out of reach of the concept of perception.
Language depends upon shared reference. The acquisition of shared reference is a complex issue that concerns the development of vocabulary and concepts over historical time and it concerns our own personal learning from being a pre-lingual baby to becoming a speaker of a particular language. You appear to me to be trying to put consciousness out of reach also of shared reference. Your method of doing so seems to depend on a distinction between 'refer' and 'describe' i.e. I think you are claiming that we have the same reference when we use the word but that consciousness itself is indescribable and cannot be identified through other relationships. If I guess correctly then I would conclude that your supposed concept of consciousness is unteachable, it is unlearnable, and that you are indeed just a breath away from agreeing with me that it does not exist
Thomas Jones 100+
The "gap" is a metaphor it could stand for: the temporal gap between an object that perceives (OtP), an object perceived, and when it "interprets" the perception; it could be the physical gap between the OtP and the object that is perceived; and it could be the "cognitive gap" (lacuna) we erroneously fill with the definition, "consciousness."
QUOTE: "We appear to disagree about what 'consciousness' refers to ..."
It would appear so: I say it exists; you say it does not.
QUOTE: "... yet you say you are not claiming we have different ideas of consciousness, but rather that I have not described it.
That is not what I am saying, although, having re-read the sentence, I can see it is a fair interpretation.
What I am saying is we (obviously) have different ideas; and our ideas are relating to different things.
Your ideas are about something that is not consciousness.
My ideas are about something other than the thing you are describing.
I am suggesting what you are describing - the interpretation of experience as consciousness - is not what I am referring to when I use the word "consciousness." For you, we might say consciousness is an "artifact" or whatever but it is certainly not “real.”
I am suggesting there is "something" called consciousness and while it is (quite obviously) not contained anywhere within your paradigm it is as real as the OtP is real.
From within your worldview, you cannot see it.
QUOTE: I guess you mean that consciousness is beyond description. It looks to me that you are making a transcendental claim and when asked to account for it will answer "I can't."
Not in the least. But, as you know, there is no description that could withstand the rigor of your most excellent model.
QUOTE: "You appear to me to be trying to put consciousness out of reach also of shared reference."
Again, not in the least, it's obvious we do not have "shared reference" ... I clearly have references that you do not share.
And it is "teachable."
Thomas Jones 100+
Here's a little afterthought:
If you were to stray outside of your model and come to understand what I refer to when I use the word “consciousness,” your model will not collapse; it will still describe exactly what it is describing now.
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Susan Sayler
I understand that science has not really defined these words so we may very well be talking right past one another.
As far as quantum-quakery is concerned, I refuse to be bulled by Richard Dawkins or anyone into rejecting a very fruitful field of exploration. http://tiny.cc/tizwv Your comment sounded to me like a typical left brain biased "believer" in scientism. Do you like that label? If not then you should consider not labeling others.
The fact is we have searched the brain for the source of consciousness and come up with nothing. We have looked all over the body too. (using Newtonian mechanical cause-effect model physics is something we are very good at by now)
Those physicists with the courage to endure the bitching-out of anal left-brain peers now look to the source of consciousness in those quantum fields. Consciousness has to be a property of matter itself at a very subtle level of "reality."
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
I just remembered one of the things I liked about being at school.
I didn't like the classes very much - they were, for the most part, boring.
Most of the teachers were ... bland.
The social dynamics were ... polarizing.
But I loved talking with people who were learning things ... not teaching things; learning things.
----------------------
This concludes the tangent. Resume the normal conversation.
Susan Sayler
1) Consciousness is not external to our brain (no living brain, no consciousness measurable)
2) Consciousness did not arise sudden (it evolved)
3) Consciousness is not either/or (there are multiple levels, gradations of consciousness)
I strongly disagree with all 3. Re point #1: Plants have no brain and yet they are clearly conscious: http://tiny.cc/vuw02 Likewise, cells in the body make choices and know an enemy from a friend, so to speak.
Re point #2: The interesting thing about consciousness is that it does NOT evolve. It does not change at all. What changes is the sophistication of the nervous system housing the consciousness. Consciousness works in a nervous system like electricity works on appliances, depending how they are built you get its distinct flavor. Electricity in the refrigerator makes things cold, electricity in a toaster makes things hot. But it is the SAME electricity doing it. Likewise with consciousness, the consciousness of a frog can only work from the degree of sophistication of a frog's nervous system. A human nervous system is far more refined. Re #3: It is due to the nervous system and not the consciousness that we see gradations and differences. The consciousness itself never changes. Consciousness permeates all living things, probably at the quantum level.
Thomas Jones 100+
Christophe Cop says, "no living brain, no consciousness measurable."
Regular readers will probably notice a pattern here (any second now.)
Do either of you KNOW what consciousness is?
Do you know if the person you are talking to knows what consciousness is?
Do you know if you are describing "different things" when you use the word "consciousness?"
Thomas Jones 100+
You say,
QUOTE: "...Plants have no brain and yet they are clearly conscious..."
It sort of depends on how we use the word consciousness but putting that aside for a moment, I think you will like the story of the acacia tree.
Giraffes eat acacia tree leaves. Some folks who had a lot of time on their hands noticed that they would eat "a lot of leaves" in a particular location and almost none in others. There were lots of possible explanations but they decided to "figure out why." (Don't ask me how but eventually they did.)
It turns out that when the giraffe start eating the leaves of a particular tree, it "reacts;" it starts to produce a "pheromone" which is carried on the wind to other acacia trees. They react to the pheromone and start to produce something that makes their leaves taste bitter and the giraffe don't like them.
Cool, huh?
Colleen Steen 500+
Here's another interesting thing I've noticed in the gardens over the years...
Certain kinds of weeds will grow next to perrenials that look very similar. Is this a conscious effort to survive? Do they "know" that I may not recognize them because they are so much like the plants I want to keep and nurture?
Thomas Jones 100+
The phenomenon could be explained (quite well) by evolution ... and, in theory, something similar could be happening in a parallel universe with no "sentient" beings in it to be aware of it on any level.
It could also be explained by postulating a degree (either high or low) of consciousness.
Wayne Busby 30+
Susan Sayler
I agree, semantics is an issue. The word comes from the Greek: con=with scious=knowledge; and its earliest use was to imply self-referential consciousness: "to know that you know".
From metaphysics, consciousness is the animating principle of life and this is the way I use the word (separate from perception, awareness, mind, attention, thinking) so "life" and "consciousness" are interchangeable. The reason I believe this is so is because in order for life to remain alive, every part of that life form has to be making conscious decisions. By conscious decisions it is choosing in the moment "this and not that". Furthermore, I believe this is the definition of evolution; the choosing of this and not that.
Thomas Jones 100+
A few weeks ago, I coined a word for this: "to know that you know:"
It's: "gnovidya." From Proto-Indo-Euopean, "gno," from which we get "gnosis;" and the Sanskrit, "vidya" meaning knowledge, learning and science.
So, gnovidya: knowing that you know or the state of knowing.
Paul van Zoggel
Edmund Husserl was in search his whole life to the essence of thought, in the end - he had more time than me to contemplate on it - he had to make a closing statement he will not KNOW the answer as he, as long as he lives, is within thought/consciousness.
I enjoy the word 'gnovidya', it has a sparkle in 'consciousness' ;).
Maybe we do need a word for our 'new understanding of our part/anchor in 'unity consciousness'.
Where did you coin it Thomas, did it land?
Christophe Cop 500+
I think that limits the idea of consciousness somewhat, though it can be seen as the thing that eventually led to more and more responsiveness, which finally turns out to be what we can call consciousness...
So I clearly see you use another definition of consciousness... as such you say that other things evolve, not the consciousness as such... I take the evolving part as part of what consciousness is.
About the quantum level: suddenly I have the feeling you stepped into the quantum-quackery trap.
Your claim about the permeation of consciousness, to me, seems like total bullocks. There is no evidence for it whatsoever...
Colleen Steen 500+
YOUR theory that consciousness is ONLY produced by the brain from birth to death is the limiting one! Remember how you said consciousness has many different levels? And above, you say "I take the evolving part as part of what consciousness is"....YES!!!
I agree that consciousness is "primitive"...original...primary...elemental...natural...belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development...YES!!!
And in my humble opinion...connects everything that is:>)
daniel hehir 20+
I personally thought it was a pretty darn good poem ... ;-)
A little laughter is medicine for the soul ! We don't need to take ourselves so seriously !
Pinker... he's a "THINKER"... in his brain like a machine..
Let me get my microscope ...and I'll show you what I mean....
Over here in this corner.... he says there is no " I "
... and over here he claims.... that freedoms just a lie......
and over there ! ... you see..! Theeeres no such thing as "soul" ..!
All our thoughts and feeling..... are waaay beyond control....!
And Pinker.... he's a "TINKER" ...
....within his puzzling little brain.....
he puzzles soul and spirit..... are simply to disdain.....
My " I " it is not real.... he shouts.... and shakes his mighty fist
He points his finger to his head ... My "Self" does not exist
My " I " is just illusion..... "But the problem is so hard"
"Don't add to my confusion... I'm no bloody retard"
But Pinker...he's a "STINKER"....
In his twisted little thoughts...
He's setting up a spiders web..
Be careful... don't get caught...
Cause his viewpoint makes no sense at all....
No Freedom - Soul - nor " I ".....
...so I wonder who has told him this...
and I ask the reason why....
Susan Sayler
daniel hehir 20+
Lawrence Trevanion claims the following
Consciousness as an agent of any kind can be seen as obsolete pseudo-knowledge - an idea that stood in place of our ignorance and which is now an obstacle to overcoming ignorance.
I prefer to claim the following
Human consciousness is the stage upon which concept and observation meet and become linked to one another.
Thomas Jones 100+
My first reaction when I read your post was, "You're kidding, right!?"
But I don't think you are.
Here's my vote:
You think: "Human consciousness is the stage upon which concept and observation meet and become linked to one another."
And you think Lawrence thinks: "Consciousness as an agent of any kind can be seen as obsolete pseudo-knowledge - an idea that stood in place of our ignorance and which is now an obstacle to overcoming ignorance." [You might be right, he might think that but the point is, you think he thinks that.]
You think you are right and you think he is wrong.
You seem to be emotionally invested in being right so you have a hard time hearing (and understanding) anything that does not conform to your worldview. "Democracy" will not resolve this cognitive predilection.
Does that help?
Colleen Steen 500+
It appears to me, that you are both going around in circles, and appear to be emotionally invested in being "right". For me, successful, valuable discussions grow and evolve when we find some common ground on which we can connect, rather than focusing on the parts of the discussion that continue to disconnect us.
Lawrence Trevanion
Up to this point you have commented on nothing I have written nor I on what you have written. I imagine that it is obvious to both of us that there are few if any points of agreement.
On what basis do you suggest I am "going around in circles, and appear to be emotionally invested in being "right"? How is such a comment respectful and how does it provide for a successful, valuable discussion?
I would be interested to know how you think a discussion should proceed between someone who thinks the earth is flat and someone who thinks the earth is round.
Thomas Jones 100+
Not to answer for Colleen (she can do that quite well on her own) but I do understand how it might look like the conversation is "going in circles."
It would also be easy to assume there is an emphasis on "being right."
The concepts and precepts you present are not easy to grasp and the fact you are having a dialogue with someone who (apparently) doesn't understand you and yet wishes to debate with you would, quite naturally, result in a somewhat circuitous exchange.
I have not read all of your posts but my sense is you are not invested in "being right" you are invested in "being understood"... but you are only one of the participants in the particular discussion in question.
Colleen Steen 500+
I actually agree with some of your statements, and do not understand others, but I have read them all with interest.
Sorry if you perceived my comment to be disrespectful...it was not meant to be so. Some of the comments between you and Daniel seem repetitious to me, and that is why I said it feels like the conversation is going in circles. I also perceive some commonalities in some of the statements, which suggests to me that you may not be listening to each other. The only reason I address this, is because Daniel asked the question, and now you ask me to clarify...which I appreciate:>) I am a mediator, so am usually aware of commonalities, which may move a discussion forward:>)
Lawrence Trevanion
I did not seek a conversation with Daniel Hehir. I have answered his questions with respect to the proposition that I put i.e. "people are objects that perceive" correctly states the relationship between experience and the real. I asked him to confine the discussion to whether what I have written follows from this proposition, or whether matters of fact contradict the proposition. The fact that I continue to answer his questions apparently exposes me to the charge that I am "going around in circles, and appear to be emotionally invested in being "right".
Regarding mediation, I notice that when Daniel wrote 0n 24 March ""But Pinker...he's a "STINKER"" he received 3 thumbs up. You responded on 25 March under that comment and on 26 March you responded to his final poem with -
"Good job Daniel:>)
It's been fun to be conscious...together:>)"
I think you would agree that the community of TED commenters has some room for improvement in the matter of respect.
Colleen Steen 500+
Sorry you feel "exposed". You DID ask me to clarify, and I offered my observation.
I did not give anyone thumbs up for the comment you describe above. I'm sure you know how the comment threads run? Sometimes, it's difficult to get a response right under the comment one is responding to.
My comment "Good job Daniel...", was for his moderation of a very long thread...600+ comments. While comments from other threads certainly give us information about the topics and each other, I try to focus on the information/conversation on the thread in front of me.
I agree that we have room for improvement in the matter of respect:>)
Paul van Zoggel
... "As you remember, aether is the substance of thought, of imagination. Aether is all around us, everything we see is ‘covered’ in the stuff. It is the potential of everything we see, a plant that grows, it is the driving force of mother nature. A regions potential is the best case ‘what if’, what if all the elements and all the activity is running in complete harmony, the region can become something extraordinary beautiful. While in flow, the aether of the painters mind and the aether in the region simply blend together. A painter knows this feeling, he is in a trance state of mind, ‘loose’ from his conscious. Like throwing a glass of water in the ocean, the two normally divided elements become one. It is at this moment the imagination and potential of the painter and is the imagination and potential of the region he is looking at are one through the substance we call aether.
A painter has tapped into potential by painting potential. The composition of paint is the translation of aether he has ‘seen’, passed on. As we can see paint, our mind translates this composition back to it’s own storage of aether, it’s own potential. This we experience as an energy boost in our brain, our body, our body and mind align for a moment in potential, we feel.
The aether-thought-potential triangle on the brain, a funny theory, I believe now it is an amazing element. Hidden from us as our thought is made from the stuff. As unique as the other elements are by themselves individually. Artists, or anybody thinking a lot and going for their potential experiences the flow of elementals through conscious flow.
...
Rachel Anderson
Luigi Vampa
Mystery means what cant be expressed with words. Came from ancient greek "misthos" without words or incapable to be talked."
Lawrence Trevanion
A further reply.
When saying 'I perceive X', X can be a memory, something imagined, a thought (imagined language) or something seen heard, felt, seen etc. The interpretation that X is something real, and that it is not memory imagination or delusion, is complex but generally we are very competent at these distinctions. When I read these words I see them and rehearse them silently i.e. I perceive the words and I perceive the imagined language.
You need to take to heart the fact that language is conducted entirely through tokens in the real (even when we imagine it). Language is unrelentingly real because people are real - the real is the only means through which they can communicate. This explains why it is wrong to think of thought as a substance and it explains why people cannot read minds - there is no such thing as non-real perception of another person's imagined language.
I note some confusion regarding out of body experience (OBE). The mechanics of our vision mean that we see the world from a point behind the front of our face. This is used as the basis for locating consciousness in the head. In contrast to this visceral feelings are often used to locate the soul in the heart. Are our visual and visceral consciousnesses in different places? One wonders if a snail's consciousness might not be in thin air. And if consciousness is an existence that can leave the body (i.e. is not confined to the eyes' real viewpoint(s?)) then we are left to suppose that visual consciousness takes on an imaginary location when imagining things, a delusional location when we are deluded, a confused location when we are confused etc. It makes more sense to suppose that OBE is the adoption of an imaginary viewpoint than to think of it as a non-real substance moving through the real. (I am confident Lindsay Newland Bowker's remarks to the contrary would not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.)
Lawrence Trevanion
I reply here rather than under Adam Leeson's post.
The progress of knowledge is not a democracy. When a new understanding regarding the interpretation of human experience comes along it is irrelevant to say that no one agrees with it. It makes sense that if the world-views of people in the past are now obsolete then we should be prepared to see our own views overturned. You seem particularly unprepared.
A quick survey of the comments here will show that there is great confusion in the use of words like 'real' and 'exist'. You write, for example "The spiritual world is as real as the world of consciousness." Your most recent reply capitalises 'real' and has it in scare quotes. I, on the other hand, claim that objects (meaning the real) exist and that we say so to indicate that they persist regardless of whether we are perceiving them or not. Has human understanding comes to such a sorry pass that this can be regarded as controversial? If people are objects that perceive, if experience is what it is like for objects to perceive, then it makes no sense to say that experience exists.
Ironically, you yourself write of the mystery of consciousness. So if you want to try a new way of interpreting experience and master a disciplined way of using language, instead of saying 'I have consciousness of X' say instead 'I perceive X'; instead of saying 'My consciousness of X exists' say 'I definitely perceive X'.
Instead of writing "Consciousness is the mediator between thinking and observation." write "I perceive thoughts and I perceive the world". In recognising that you are an object and that to some degree you perceive yourself you will see that the relationship between the perception of thought and the perception of the world is a complex one that can be investigated in the real. Consciousness as an agent of any kind can be seen as obsolete pseudo-knowledge - an idea that stood in place of our ignorance and which is now an obstacle to overcoming ignorance.
daniel hehir 20+
I agree that the progress of knowledge is not a democracy. But at the same time to deny that consciousness is "real" simply because it is something that is outside your framework of the "real" is not justified.
In Adam's thread you used the word tall. .You said that "tallness" is not real and therefore concluded that consciousness was not real. Do you mean then to apply that model of explanation to every adj. that "necessitate the noun form" Awareness or selfishness or humbleness? these are descriptive qualities of human states of being and condition. We can say "He is aware." or "He has awareness." or we can say "He is unaware." ... just as we say "He is conscious." or "He has no consciousness." or "He is unconscious."... But to say he has tallness makes little sense at all.. or to say he is "untall"... logic of language looses its grip. What you said on Adam's thread was just double talk. You try to kick the feet out from under the logic of language itself. The necessitation of noun forms for inner experiences reflects inner human development.
Noticing that you use the word " I " quite regularly... Do you consider your " I " to be real?. or is your " I " just simply a construct or abstraction without inhold? What then, is real about your own " I " if anything..? Is it a "continuing" factor within the "real"?
You obviously must be thinking quite a bit... to consider, evaluate, reconsider, reevaluate these words..can you then say that your "thinking" is real? Is it a real .."activity".. that is going on within you. Is it a "continuing" factor?
After you have responded to these few short question, I wonder if you could say just a few words about what you understand of the subject / object relationship of the "object that perceives"... if you don't mind..
Thank you
Lawrence Trevanion
'I' is the object that perceives. The mechanics of perception are such that a perceiving object knows very little about itself.
In the framework implied by the assertion 'people are objects that perceive', objects are real and consciousness is not. Such an understanding imposes discipline on the meaning of 'real' and 'exist', something that is notably lacking.
Accounts of human experience can be reduced to the form 'I perceive X' (where 'I' is the object that perceives).
Your comments above on Berkeley mistakenly addressed to Thomas show not only are you unprepared for new ideas you are not prepared for old ones. I think Berkeley's argument is profoundly important but I would expect anyone reading my remarks to know that I was directly contradicting him - he says perceptions exist and therefore not the real, whereas I'm saying the real exists and therefore not perceptions.
I believe this is a quote from you from March 24 2011 "But Pinker...he's a "STINKER"....". It is no crime to be ignorant, but the sort of abuse you mix with your ignorance is unacceptable.
daniel hehir 20+
I quote you..without copy and paste.
"..'I' is the object that perceives. The mechanics of perception are such that a perceiving object knows very little about itself."
Here you are meaning to say "I" being the "object that perceives" due to my own limited mechanics of my own perception are such that "I" (the perceiving object) know very little about myself and the way I perceive the outer objects in the "real" ... including my OWN perceptions and including my own PERCEPTIONS of my own perceptions...."
Think about that... The fact that you the observer can not only observe the outer world (the real.. in your words) but included in this .. you can observe your own observations as perceptions in the world.
As you elegantly jumped over a few of my previous questions... I will try to ask them again... just one at a time so you don't loose track.
Can you explain to me the meaning in your mind... with your limited mechanics of perception... just what is the relationship between the subject / object nature of your thinking...?
If you really try to get to the bottom of this question, you will find that what you are calling "the object that perceives" .. CAN ... and "DOES" perceive its "OWN" activity !! This is the true nature of thinking !!
As I tried to point out earlier to you ... the fact that you can evaluate then "RE" evaluate... consider and then "RE" consider your own thoughts must point it out quite clearly to you... regardless of how limited you assume your own mechanical perceptions are.
ALL this mental stumbling around that you are doing is because of the fact that you haven't yet recognized this fact.
Your own "THINKING" is observing your own "THINKING".... This is the amazing fact of the nature of thinking itself...!!
Now ... if I am in any way going to be able to help you to a better understanding of this fact, you must try to answer my question about the subject / object nature of thinking, because this is my impression of where your problem lies.
Lawrence Trevanion
I answer your post "I quote you .." as follows:
An object that perceives doesn't perceive perceptions. 'I perceive X' does not progress to 'I perceive perceptions of X'. If it did we would produce an infinite regression i.e. 'I perceive perceptions of perceptions of X' and so on.
Thinking (imagined language) can be expressed in terms of 'I perceive X'. The fact that we do not understand the mechanics of perception means we do not understand the detail of the processes of our thinking. We can discern patterns in the thoughts that we perceive but not even you, with your notions of self knowing, can predict what thought(s?) you will perceive in 30 seconds time. We do not perceive our own brains, far less its intricate detail. Perceiving the mechanism of our brains would require a new level of mechanism of perception. Even if we had this new level of perception of our brains this would not perfect self knowledge because we would not perceive this new level of mechanism. We are necessarily self-unknowing to some extent. This is why it is that neuroscience has new things to tell us about ourselves.
Thinking does not observe thinking. You are using 'observe' as a metaphor from vision. Do I need to point out that the abstraction 'thinking' does not have eyes and does not observe anything?
You have missed the most critical point. You have shown yourself to be ignorant yet you have not denied writing "But Pinker...he's a "STINKER"....". You have a great deal to learn, not least from Pinker. If you cannot treat such a person with respect it is difficult to see why anyone would bother to converse with you.
Ekaterina Gavrilova
I agree and have no doubt that animals have their evolution of the mind, and sometimes we certainly admire their organized actions and decisions. But I'm talking about the being at this moment of time.
Why it occurred to him to intervene in natural processes through science, like genetics, nanotechnology, chemistry, etc. What is it?
On this occasion, there are remarkable words of the Russian scientist Evdokiya Marchenko, "On the planet Earth for a long time man grows up and finally he became so reasonable that he was able to intervene in natural processes. Until that time the person just used the fruits of these lands, his mind itself didn't develop. Passed the stage of the description and transfer the experience for the body's development. As soon as the man crossed a certain border and began to structure natural process , it's time to talk about the mind itself. Before that the man just kept on the nature,for example, the bird - by plain, cold - by fridge, legs - by car, it was just acceleration. He also domesticated animals, getting them from food.,,"
Manish Agarwal
The consciousness so induced is part of the infinite all pervading consciousness also called "God". However this consciousness seems to forget this linkage when the child manifest's as a human being. Through the process of meditation it is possible to reconnect with the infinite consciousness as a human being.
There are numerous instances in Indian literature where this life force has been induced by a human being in a inanimate human body through the access to yogic capabilities. One such example is the birth of a Hindu God Ganesh who was born by the infusion of Prana into a inanimate body by his mother Parvati
Wayne Busby 30+
Forgive my eagerness to post in this string but i have so many theories seeking your insights in regards to these related topics...
....all known life forms including our individual selves can be defined in terms of myriad and incredibly complex yet for the most part harmonious smaller life forms, dwelling in relative symbiosis while opportunistically manipulating all manner of resources and in their own unique ways contributing to those organs functions and structures (i.e. neurons in your brain! ) that give 'higher' organisms form and allow them as unique collectives to perform those actions necessary to the continued viability of those 'wholes' we in our case call our 'conscious person'.
...once again form and function... herein lies my theories about the material meaning of life. Just crazy enough?
Looking eagerly forward to you insights.
Cheers.
Comment deleted
Wayne Busby 30+
I once saw a video of an octopus navigating a semitransparent maze full of trap doors. All this in order to find and UNSCREW a jar of fish or something then quickly consume its prize.
Pretty amazing and a little creepy. It all took about 2 minutes.
Thanks for the leads.
Cheers.
Colleen Steen 500+
Interesting thread you've got going here:>)
Wayne, your story about the octopus reminds me of another scene with an octopus...
While diving one night, we came upon an octopus who was hanging out on a coral reef. I was with divers who had underwater video equipment and lights, so we followed the octopus at a respectable distance. The lights, however, apparently caused concern for the octopus, and as he slithered along the reef, he changed all colors of the rainbow to try to blend in with the reef. It seemed that when he realized we were not going to go away,
and we were not going to hurt him, he "sat" on the top of the coral reef and seemed to cross his legs into a comfortable position and just looked at us! He could have swam off into the ocean at any time, but he "hung out" with us:>) I have this on film, so it's fun to revisit it:>)
I saw an interesting documentary about dogs a few months ago, in which the ending question was...maybe dogs are more intelligent than humans? One of the interesting factors, is that wolves and foxes, which they think dogs are evolved from, have a very limited vocabulary, while domesticated dogs are evolving with more and more vocabulary and understanding all the time. The theory is that dogs are learning how to "speak" to humans. It is not unrealistic to think/feel that consciousness reaches much farther than the human brain, and science is beginning to be consciously aware of this fact:>)
Are we listening?
Thomas Jones 100+
I think it's in the UK, there is a border-collie named Chaser, that "knows" over 1000 words.
It is common for dogs (especially collies) to have vocabularies of 300 or more words.
I once told my friend's spaniel, "Chico," to "Go get your Santa!" ["Santa" was a plush chew toy shaped like Santa Claus.]
Chico looked at me, cocked his head to the right, slowly turned around, walked upstairs to the bedroom, and came back down with "Santa" in his mouth.
Colleen Steen 500+
The border-collie you speak of was featured in the documentary, along with lots of other dogs, researchers and scientists who have been studying the evolution of dogs for many years:>)
Wayne Busby 30+
ALL living things in some way do these and every one of these 'habits/instincts' is dependent on important inter-species correlations, (some correlations are essential to those parts of the ecosystem which support human life), i.e. what trees eliminate (breath out) and produce as fruit (reproduction), we breath in to catalyze internal functions and ingest to fuel our flesh etc...
I am of the opinion that interfering negatively with any one of the six (i.e. pollution) grievously limits the viability of any species of organism.
As it is our senses (formed organs) that facilitate the above (functions) I believe a deeper understanding of the importance of these correlation's may also help us (re)define consciousness.
As a species we have in greatest numbers moved away from any semblance of dwelling harmoniously within our environment. All our Greatest societies are built on short sighted principles and "It is only common sense that the idea of endorsing an economy, whose policies, goods and services promote the extinction of its benefactors, is foolish, or at least bad for business."
I think it would be the wisest use of our intellects to focus some energy on realigning our cultures to work with our evolving ecosystem, not as cancers to be eliminated but as proper supportive custodians.