This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is consciousness? What is required for consciousness to exist?
What makes consciousness important?
We already know that many of our mental experiences are reducable to brain function. The brain controls our feelings, our behaviors, our thoughts, speech, etc and all of these constitute to the experiences that we have. From a psycho-neural identity perspective mental and brain processes are one and the same. Mental that people (and other organisms) experience and think are real are nothing more than they physical functioning of the Brain and w/o a Brain, could their be an absence of mind or experiences? What Scientific or Philosophical approaches can support this claim? What issues arise if one is to completely accepts the reductionist position?
Do the other alternatives like dualism, pluralism and monism and quantum mechanics have something to offer to this question?
I understand that this may not bring us any closer to unlocking the mysteries of consciousness but I'm interested in learning more about it from different perspectives/approaches.
Richard Nota 20+
Active consciousness - responding to passive consciousness to produce desired results (eg making decisions). These are probably also related to physical events in our brain so they also have passive components.
A sophisticated conscience is probably the integration of many sub consciousnesses because it takes many neurons to to process an idea.
Robots are not conscious (at least not like we are). They can be made to respond to, say yellow, but they do not experience a yellow sensation.
The thing is that consciousness has related physical processes. There is no reason to believe in such a thing as a disembodied consciousness. Consciousness it tied to the conscious object.
So what am I alluding to? That consciousness might be considered a property of an object just as an object has physical properties. The consciousness and physical properties are intimately related.
Lawrence Trevanion
I've written a lot of comments on this subject on TED.
My answer is that there is no such thing as consciousness. It involves creating a false existence through a misunderstanding of the concept of perception. The simple fact is, we regard other people as objects and science can address everything about them as objects. We only produce a philosophical problem when we start thinking about ourselves.
We can solve the various problems by supposing we are objects that perceive, that experience is what it is like for objects to perceive. We produce consistency if we express our experience as "I perceive X" rather than "I have consciousness of X" or "I have perceptions of X". This view can be integrated with Darwin's view that people are evolved objects.
The evolution of language and concepts means that such a view is not self evident but is presented as an axiom or postulate.
Supporting concepts include the notion that language is learned and shared and is manifest entirely and only as tokens in the real i.e. language of itself does not imply anything beyond the real. (Thought is the imagination of language.) Also, such a view is a product of, and reflexly supports, a relativist understanding of truth - language has meaning because it works and no perfect identity is required or implied, no perfect language, no ultimate truths. (Note this is proper relativism, the denial of absolutes, and not the notion that truth is relative to person or culture.) A consequence of this is the denial of perfect identity and therefore also of strict self-reference (including logical self reference) i.e. self reference paradoxes are illusory.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
In regards to saying there is no such thing as consciousness that is interesting and I am starting to think that what we call consciousness is nothing more than a product brain function. I do see two problems with this approach: the transformative experiences people have through introspective practices. The fact that consciousness has yet been proven to be reducable to brain activity leaves a window open to interpret consciousness as something that is outside of oneself.
I understand everything that you have stated but I do have one question: If consciousness does not exist and is nothing more than just an illusion then what exactly is it that causes people to make claims about the transcendent experiences that they have? The experiences people have while meditating are indeed real, so what exactly are they experiencing if one is indeed "creating a false existence through a misunderstanding of the concept of perception"? In other word do you really think that the experiences that people have while meditating is nothing more that a psycho-chemical processes in ones brain?
In response to your second paragraph I would actually argue that perception is actually a product of awareness. You mentioned that "I perceive X" but in this sense in order to make a statement about a subjective experience one is having (in this case the letter "I" implies an subjective observer) one has to be aware of this perception, of this experience in order to make a claim. In other words in order for one to know they are having experience, one has to be aware of their experience. I do not think this sort of awareness can be thought of as an illusion.
So whatever it is that allows us to be aware of our experiences and ourselves is what I'm interested in rather or not consciousness exist.
Lawrence Trevanion
"consciousness is nothing more than a product brain function"
No! Our notion of the real derives from "I perceive X". To transform this into "I have perceptions of X" and say that the real produces these perceptions is hopelessly disordered and it creates that marvellous tangle that is the mind-body problem (the inability to state the relationship between our experience and the real).
"The experiences people have while meditating are indeed real .."
Experiences are not real. Objects are real, an understanding that is derived from "I perceive X". If you do not maintain disciplined meaning for words like 'real' and 'exist' then you cannot have a precise conversation - it will always remain vague and muddled.
Regarding transcendent experience, I see no reason to set it apart from the "I perceives X"'s of memory, imagination and emotion. As commented above, these experiences are not a product, and certainly not a product of anything real - there is no identity between the 'something imaginary' in "I perceive something imaginary" and chemical processes. The significance of such experience is an open question, but if people really are objects that perceive then such experience really is imaginary/delusional/irrelevant if it does not address the real in some way - it is just pointless self-absorbed entertainment.
"perception is actually a product of awareness".
'product' is used here as a metaphor. 'Awareness' is an abstraction. If you use the word 'perception' in this way we have nothing to talk about.
I use 'perception' in this way:- experience is understood to arise from perception. In proposing that people are objects that perceive we are stating a relationship between experience and the real. In this understanding perception is a physical process, light mediates vision, sound mediates hearing etc. 'I' is the object that perceives. I think you are suggesting that "I perceive X" is wrong and should be replaced with "I am aware that I perceive X". Good luck!
Gonzalo Rodriguez
I can only assume, because i have no factual evidense to support what im saying, that death is more than the abscense of life.
i used to think in condcutism is what we are, a response to our enviroment a result, controllable and replicable, but here is a mystery, once you are aware of this proces you can decide, more than decide change our very inner preconcepts, conditions.
in the very same way we can be aware of what made us, we can explore this inner proces of perception, and "be aware" of two diferent levels concius, one as the subconcius bound to the physical body, and other subtle perception that does not recognice facts, even thought it's aware.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Now to say experiences are not real is really surprising. If one meditates and has a life changing experience and these experiences results in a change of behavior for the individual an those around her/him then the experience was indeed real. The fact that an individual is able to understand and realize that they are having experience suggest that those experiences are real. If we are talking about external objects being real I will ask you this:if all of our five senses send information to the brain to be processed and then a part of our brain is damaged to the point where information is affected, would the objects then be real? When it comes to transcendent experiences, the meaning may be debated but the experience of it I do not think can be disputed.
Lawrence Trevanion
The certainty of your posts doesn't match the confusion and unknowing suggested by your question: "What is consciousness? What is required for consciousness to exist?"
You can access people's comments by name if you really are interested "in learning more about it from different perspectives/approaches." That was the point of my remark that I'd written a lot on this subject on TED.
Interpreting experience as "I perceive X" is incompatible with "I have experience".
Objects are real. We say they exist which means they persist regardless of whether we perceive them or not (and regardless of whether we have incompetent or damaged perception of them). Experience is not an object, nor is it real, nor do we perceive it (because this would lead to an infinite regression). These sorts of statements define what real and exist mean. If you want to understand the idea that experience can be correctly interpreted as "I perceive X" where 'I' is the perceiving object and perception is a process in the real, then you must accept, if only in this context, these disciplined meanings.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Now I understand what you are saying. I honestly do think that objects are real but a lot of quantum theoriest who deal with how sub-atomic particles are influenced by an observer tend not to think so and state that objects do not exist a conscious organism decides to look at it (which I think is absurd being that most of them reject the notion that there is an external world). What I am saying is that yes there is an external world but if ones brain cannot process the information correctly or an area of the brain is damaged this does influence ones experience of the world. Secondly if by real you mean solid, external, full of mass then yes experiences are not like these but the experiences (the fact that one is having experience and is experiencing a particular object is indeed real (if you understand what I am saying). In other words I sort of get what your saying but I think where we differ is I guess how we perceive experience and its vicissitudes.
Lawrence Trevanion
You haven't read my comments. If you have you wouldn't be suggesting to me that quantum mechanics can save consciousness theory.
We can judge Descartes' "I perceive therefore I exist" to be a true statement because 'I' is an object that perceives and objects exist. It is not an absolutely certain statement because we use the concept of perception to comprehend experience and this choice is contingent. The notion that it is absolutely certain that 'perceptions' exist is nonsense because there is no absolute certainty attached to the terms 'perceptions' and 'exist'. The most secure thing Descartes can be understood to be saying is "I perceive therefore I perceive" which says nothing at all. This is why neither you nor Descartes have been able to derive any further unquestionable certainties from the statement (- you ought to have been puzzled by this).
The idea that you can inherit concepts such as 'exist', 'real', 'perception' and 'consciousness' and then frame absolutely certain statements using them, is unjustified.
You say: "The only thing that I said that was certain is that consciousness exist being that it is what allows me to have experiences and be aware of these experiences." and "The truth of the matter is, I know nothing about consciousness ".
You say "The only thing I challenge in your post is what you said about experiences being an illusion which is I believe to be false."
I interpret experience to indicate that experience can be comprehended in terms of "I perceive X". That you have mangled this into the notion that experience is an illusion is your own doing. I hope it is obvious that you are being offered much sharper meanings than you currently use.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I think you may have misconstrued Descartes philosophy. Descartes was referring to experience, not perception (two completely different things). He rejected perception being that it would have in part, came from the senses. He came to the conclusion of him having experience because of thought (nothing more, nothing less). That fact that Descartes was having experience was irrefutable (at least to him) and the fact that many other living individuals have experiences as well will lead them to believe that they too exist. In this case the only thing one can be certain of is the life that they are experiencing.
Secondly no, your line of reasoning is quite confusing and you certainly have a play on words. The only difference between "perceive and perception" is that perception involves the mental(or shall I say consciousness) aspects. Both require information from the senses(which I never rejected) but with the definition like perceive, it just stops there. Your really using semantics to support your own conclusion about consciousness not existing.
You said "Experiences are not real" as well as "self reference paradoxes are illusory". This is where I got your entire notion of experiences being an illusion. Those who are self-reflective perhaps have the most wisdom (Thich Nhat Hanh for example) and you call this an illusion? haha. I really suggest you learn more about eastern traditions, mystics and books on neuroscience so we can have a serious convo.
spencer fix
Unfortunately, Descartes assumed the "I" in his statement, sort of nullifying the whole argument, and it seems to me like Lawrence is doing the same (though I do not fully understand your position). We can evaluate his statement if we assume there is an agreed upon "I" to perceive (just like Lawrence's assumption that objects exist and perceive).
I think the argument Orlando is pointing to is the one that states that the "I" is the illusion which muddles our thinking of the whole situation, not consciousness. Eastern philosophies discuss this matter at great lengths, while going so far as to say that one cannot really understand it with the mind. One can only be conscious of it.
I only enter this discussion because I have never been able to wrap my head around denying consciousness. Maybe that is true, but it seems far more likely that I don't exist but consciousness does. After all, I have tons of "evidence" that consciousness exists. The "evidence" that independent objects exist is far less substantial.
Lawrence Trevanion
Using words to comprehend experience effectively, to identify correctly and to state relationships correctly can hardly be dismissed as just semantics.
If we say that the core meaning of 'real' and 'exist' lies in statements such as "Objects exist" then a lot of close reasoning is required to progress to saying not-real things exist. Objects are real, they exist, they persist regardless of whether we perceive them or not. So the idea that we can deduce new existences from the fact of perception (of all things!) seems absurd at first glance. Saying that consciousness exists looks at best a metaphor. The idea that wisdom can be progressed through ill constructed metaphor and vague abstraction seems wrong to me. So yes, I cheerfully admit wilful ignorance of eastern mystics - it appears that people are entirely real and the way forward is to study the real.
Regarding neuroscience, you will note that these 2 TED talks emphasise the concrete:
Pinker: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_language_and_thought.html
and the recent one by
Wolpert: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for_brains.html
I am sorry you have not found our conversation to be a serious one. I hope you will rethink the matter sometime.
Wishing you all the best - LT
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I'll admit my ignorance in Pinker and I actually have a book of his called the stuff of thought (and another one). I'll take a look at those link and hopefully if we ever debate again I'll be more informed on your perspective.
I will state this though: you did give me a lot to think about so next time hopefully we can get pass arguing what is real, what exist and focus the core of our argument about perception, consciousness, the subjective observer, etc
brian herring
The Dala lama recently went to Austria I believe to witness with his own eyes, an atom in the class double-slit light experiment in the realm of quantium mechanics. This machine he was to observe can shoot a ray a light so slow, it shoot one wave/perticle of light at a time. In other words, one atom at a time. This machine had never failed, however, the Dala was willing to conceed if this model of an atom could be explained to him, he would have to re-think how his religion was taught. 2 factors,1) he did not believe in atoms,2) however he did allow for the opposing side to his belief to be. Hence, when the Dala Lama watched the machine, it failed to work properly.
James van der Walt
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I really believe that if one can admit or if there is enough convincing evidence to suggest that experience is nothing more than a physio-chemical brain processes, then notions of an after-life would really become nothing more than a fairy tale.
Richard Nota 20+
We maintain an identity but that identity requires change to be maintained. Consciousness requires changes. If we stare at a yellow brick wall we may get bored but the sensation of yellow requires continuing processes.
A dead body is fundamentally different from a live body. In a dead body the important bits required for consciousness are probably already wasted away, especially the chemicals required for the process. The rest of the body takes longer to decay.
brian herring
Gonzalo Rodriguez
this is way more complex, but just showing my perspective.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Just so I understand, you stating that consciousness, if reducible, will not find its origins in the brain but elsewhere? What would the other alternative be? These just questions of curiosity?
There is a mystical aspect to consciousness, there is not doubt about that but I am curious as to why, if consciousness or anything that we hold dear to us (actions, principles, etc) are nothing more than states of our brain, why would this seem to be "un-human". It seems that if consciousness was ever to be found to be nothing but neural activity, humans would seem to lose a very vital side of themselves. Is this the way you see things as well?
Gonzalo Rodriguez
Ed Schulte 50+
Is what drives this very same question "what is consciousness" to show up here on the TED-threads as a direct question.and least twice and week ..and is embedded in 90% to 99.9% of the rest of the ideas, questions and debate subjects.
So Thanks for bringing it here and demonstrating it !!
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I am sorry to hear you feel that way as I was unaware that people talk about consciousness a lot on here ( i have yet to see on here). But this is something that interest me being that it holds clues to our true nature as a human being and may even hold answers to other organisms.
In regards to thread I actually left out my true intention. I am really interested as to why many people do not think consciousness is reducible to brain function and what are the other alternatives for it besides dualism and as Howard Thurman would put it "The mind of God". I'm not asking "What is consciousness" I actually never once directly stated that but instead I want to know what everyone else on here thinks about it and if they do not think it is reducible to brain function I just want to know their reasons for it. nothing more nothing less..
If your not interested in the thread then you have the liberty of not talking about anything but I do not think that will stop me or anyone else interested in the subject for seeking a better understanding.
As someone once told me "If you don't A.S.K you don't G.E.T".
Ed Schulte 50+
yes I did G.E.T. your question, I just felt it would be interesting to point out that virtually every question here on the TED site, in actuality, an inquiry into the same age old question.
There are many approaches, your choice of "brain function" bring one. So I will end here by asking you how, in your construct, do you associate "brain function" with that other word "mind" as apposed to Mind (with a Capital "M" ? Is "brain function" only limited to the that mass of neurones or.??? an does "functioning" in the word "function" function beyond the physical limits on the brain itself? and does this functioning continue functioning well after the physical brain has "turned to dust" (just one expression for it :-))??
My answers to my own two questions would be "yes obviously" and "yes most certainly"
So back to your original questions.. Second one first"What is required for consciousness to exist?" Nothing . That which has become Conscious of itself by becoming HUman IOW "Consciousness of consciousness" has always existed and will always exist . And the first question again "what is consciousness" could be answered "Everything and No thing....and neither"
Orlando Hawkins 20+
Now to answer your question I would say there really is not distinction between brain and mind. If anything our mind is really dependent upon our brain. If our brain is injured or damaged, this would have devastating effects on our experiences of the world. If I was to damage a region in my temporal lobe many things can happen. My speech would be impaired, my short term memory may be affected (if the hippopocampus is indeed damaged), etc. Another example is the entire function of the cerebral cortex: its functions included memory, attention, language, awareness, thought/thinking, etc. There have also been links about our primitive brain (in the sense that the cerebral cortex is indeed a product of evolution) and its links with emotion and rationality and without our "lower" or "inner" brain, we would be at a loss. We know that with a disorder like Aphasia ones language is impaired, which would mean damage in the temporal lobe. Once again much of our experiences of the world is indeed dependent on the brain given that our five senses, that many of us disregard, really plays a big role in shaping our experiences.
I would have to disagree with your statement about nothing. Much of the possibilities of having experiences really is dependent on the biological complexity of the organism. Once again, the cerebral cortex is really responsible for allowing us to be aware of our experiences. Being that it was not always there means there is something that is required. What that is is beyond me
James van der Walt
Maybe it's best to define consciousness first. Consciousness is awareness of your environment and the ability to act to this environment to find balance. Anything that seeks balance with its environment is conscious. Yes, that means even electrons are conscious. They can sense their environment and find the positive pole and connect to it and find balance.
I also believe that the universe was created by this consciousness. All evidence shows that before the big bang reality was smooth and had very low entropy. Then an unbalance was introduced and the consciousness immediately tried to find a new balancing point. Since a basic balance could not be found more and more complex structures were appearing. At first simple molecules were formed, then more complex ones. These were still not balanced so they started interacting as well. So planets and galaxies were formed.
I think what we call life is a direct result of this imbalance in the universe. Life is yet another attempt to find balance. If you look at evolution the drive can clearly see how every living being seeks a equilibrium with its environment. Yet the unbalances still exist and evolution is pushed forward again.
Then we arrived with our brains and our higher consciousness. The more aware you are of your environment then better you are at seeking a balance. That's why we are on top of the food chain. Yet even we can still feel that the world is not quite right. We feel unbalanced so we keep looking... looking for the answer that will balance the universe.
I think you know now how to find the balance...
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I've read this book called "Quantum Enigma" that talks about how classical physics ignored problems about consciousness because the puzzle was intricate that they just brushed it off. It is very interesting. I also remember this quote that I saw in the movie. I do not remember the name of the movie but the quote stated "consciousness is the universe reflecting upon itself"
Your statement about the brain is what Intrigued me the most. If much of what we experience in the world is mental (some have even argued that all experience is mental) and much of our mental experiences is dependent upon the state and health of brain and once our brain, then wouldn't you say that consciousness is dependent upon states of the brain as well (hypothetically speaking of course). In this sense i am equating consciousness with the brain function given that all of our experiences are at least, in part, dependent upon the state of the brain. And it seems that when the brain is damaged (by injury or death) our experiences are influenced by this (at death we would not seem to have experience). You mentioned that consciousness is an awareness of our environment and the ability to act in our environment. In order for one to be consciously aware of this wouldn't you say that they would first have to have some sort of experience?
I'm intrigued by what you said about evolution and it does really seem that much of what we know about consciousness and the possibilities of experiences is really a matter of the biological complexity of the organism.
Pradee Happy
@ Orlando:from the different explanations of different people i felt- Consciousness can be defined in any way since everything is out of it =)
James van der Walt
In the beginning according to the talk, the universe was in a balanced state (low entropy) and smooth. But something happened and an exponential growth was seen. Higher and higher levels of entropy until we are where we are.
I believe the thing that started the universe was an unbalance caused by potential. If there's a potential for nothing to exist then surely there's the potential that everything should exist too. Like they say, in infinity all options become true.
The gab keeps widening because as one balance is reached more unbalance is spawned. This leads to more complex structures that try and find balance again. But there will always be an unknown and unbalanced hence the universe continue to evolve. We with our higher consciousness can appreciate how difficult it is to find a balance in our environment. There are just so many variables. Still we try.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
This may indeed be true, but I'm interested in its origins. Most of the responses that I get either state that our experiences are an illusion and that we'll never understand the true nature of the world or that it does not originate in the brain. Perhaps they are right but it would seem that there would be no purpose for one to have a brain if one of the most important and mystifying aspects of it is indeed a product of some other external force.
Not to come off in an offensive way or anything but I do not think everyone's notions of consciousness is equally valid (myself included). There are truths to be told about consciousness that may or may not ever be found but I do think that people can be wrong in their approach to it and as a matter of fact my understanding of consciousness may be 100% incorrect but I will not know about it until I am confronted with good evidence to think otherwise
Pradee Happy
Consciousness already exist, but we are not seeing / understanding. This cud be done thru inner"self" exploration n unconditional love =)
Inlakesh =)
Orlando Hawkins 20+
I agree with you to a certain degree:
When you mention that consciousness being energy what perspective are you coming from? Quantum mechanics, religious? I'm just asking so I can get an understanding since, from my experience, the word energy is usually thrown around loosely (sorry for the complications).
What you say is interesting. I have been told that the only way to understand the true nature of consciousness is through meditation or some sort of introspection. Do you think science has anything to offer to the nature of consciousness? If so, do you think a scientific understanding would devalue our mystical and spiritual understanding of our true nature?
Pradee Happy
> its really hard for me to write in words.. I feel,Science (/ Art/Music) r tools that helps to understand Spirit/ ourself/ spirituality better. But many times we highly stick to our rational right hemisphere of brain n the scientific concepts given by some scientist n we say Spirituality is not compromising with the Science i know so its not true.
> wats needed is the balance in understanding ( thru the connection of right n left hemisphere that connects everything as one - no dual consciousness). Since every being is a fractal of the Unity Consciousness/ The Ultimate energy, i feel doing good to the beings(inventing stuffs which benefits) thru Science indirectly benefit the nature of Consciousness. As you said mis-perception of science on consciousness wud devalue our spiritual understanding. Eventhough its devalued at the start/ at times, if we want n start to Understand Consciousness, someday we ll understand The Truth - its all learning =)
> when we start mediating n love unconditionally-everybody like ourself (only this love can breaks the dual consciousness we are sticking to for 1000s of yrs) n we get the alignment with the unity consciousness and we figure the connection between Science,love to Consciousness and the beauty of it.
> this is wat i feel it is, but you can find ur own answer if you seek =)
Inlakesh =)
> thank u, i jus added 'happy' to my name by myself - it cud make me n ppl happy :P