What is Consciousness?


PDS

Recommended Posts

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The maturation of the brain you speak of, brings evrything into the realm of materialism,

don't you think? Biological growth, the 'meat' of the brain. But what about

the networks - the 'circuitry' of the brain? How much is automatically built?

The 'material' aspect is that without matter, no brain function can exist at all. Even the the most intricate neural networks can only exist with a material substrate.

Of course. Also a simplistic view of materialism, which nobody denies. Existence precedes

consciousness, right?

The "mechanism of materialism" disposed of by Aristotle is a philosophy, with many offshoots.

It would define the mind and consciousness by way of the brain's material: elements, molecules, etc.

One branch is determinism, and another physicalism.

Do you - Angela - identify yourself by atoms of matter? By your "material substrate"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

Consciousness is an Objectivist axiom, so it shouldn't need a definition any more than existence needs a definition.

Awareness/experience is not synonymous with consciousness, and this is what I'd argue is the true axiom. Consciousness is a level of awareness that includes memory--which gives context/depth to experience.

In a moment we not only experience sensory information but also retained sensory information from memory... It's equivalent to the difference between a two-dimensional shape and a three-dimensional shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[D]o you not think that awareness without memory is possible?

This would mean that every moment would be an entirely fresh experience... In this state there would be no choice to make, but it does not mean that you would not be having an experience.

At the most basic levels of life I believe this is how it works: experience without memory; awareness without consciousness.

This is good, but I don't think Tony is familiar with what you are talking about -- in terms of what I might call (borrowing from Damasio) "core consciousness." This kind of "core consciousness" is the thing that makes us kin to animals (to my mind). The way I read your remarks make me think of the relatively famous (in consciousness studies) person known as HM ...

The Strange Case of H.M.

It is hard to imagine what it would be like to live without memory. What if the things that people had just seen, learned, or heard simply passed out of their minds after just a few minutes? So many of the activities of daily life, such as reading a book, watching a movie, doing homework, holding a conversation, making friends, and going to the store, would be totally impossible. People, places, and events would always seem brand-new, even if they had been experienced before. Living without memory would mean always having to exist in the present moment with no awareness of the past.

This may sound like a science fiction movie, but it actually happened. In 1953, a 27-year-old man, now known by the initials "H.M.," underwent brain surgery for his severe epilepsy * , a nervous system disorder that caused him to have daily seizures. The surgeons removed his hippocampi * , which are two parts of the lower brain, and portions of his temporal lobes * , which are the side parts of the cortex * . Doctors believed that these areas were diseased and causing H.M."s severe symptoms. (Today, most cases of epilepsy can be controlled with medication, although sometimes surgery still is required.)

H.M. was cured, but with tragic results: He could no longer remember anything for more than a few minutes. He could remember events that happened more than 2 years before the operation, but new experiences or facts were quickly forgotten. In the more than 40 years that psychologists worked with H.M., his situation did not improve. He could remember a set of numbers or a new fact for a short while, but he would forget it as soon as he was distracted or new information was added. In fact, researchers had to reintroduce themselves every time they met with H.M., constantly reminding him where he was and why he was there. H.M. once said, "Every day is alone by itself," meaning that he could never make sense of today in terms of yesterday. He experienced time in separate chunks that were quickly erased from his mind.

However, H.M. could still learn parts of new motor skills or routines and repeat them at a later time, even though he did not remember that he had learned them. For example, he gradually learned how to draw an image in a mirror, solve puzzles, and mount cigarette lighters on a cardboard display. H.M.'s remarkable case illustrates the fact that there are different types of memory that involve different parts of the brain.

Now, what was missing in HM was not procedural memory, nor did he lose the ability to subconsciously learn physical tasks -- but his day to day world of consciousness was without memory consolidation. As he said above, each day is alone by itself.

Considering how important memory is to our human selves, how crippled we can be without a working memory, can we still imagine a pre-self-conscious human (a toddler before she 'knew who she was' -- during the years subject to childhood amnesia) who has one up on HM, with functioning hippocampus? If we can imagine this, can we say that this small human did not have 'consciousness' ... ? Can we say that HM did not have 'consciousness'? I think not. HM, without a hippocampus, was able to converse, walk, write, read, etcetera, and could identify himself. He was 'conscious' of himself and his surroundings.

Another way to look at this tangle where emotion, memory, self-awareness and consciousness intersect and work together is by looking at animals that are closest to us (in terms of primate evolution). Here is a short (5 minute) video of Damian Aspinall and his reunion with young gorilla, Kwibi.

I am hoping we can stop banging the pot for Rand and think about what this brief vignette can suggest to us about identity, self/other, memory, emotion and .... consciousness.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, touching and informative: animals have consciousness. So? Who said not?

And the traumatic loss of any part of human consciousness (memory, emotions, you name it) proves what, philosophically?

One experience of Alzheimer's was a sobering enough lesson about the loss of identity and self-identity, for me.

Damasio has very interesting thoughts in neuroscience - neural structures, protoself, first-order

neural maps, second-order neural maps, hierarchy of consciousness - which pose not the slightest

contradiction to Rand, nor to my above interpretations of her. More like similarities, in fact.

"Core consciousness"? What's wrong with Rand's "content consciousness" and "action consciousness"?

She beat him to it by decades, by my guess. And she wasn't a neuroscientist.

No - you must appreciate, William, I'm not "banging the pot" for Rand, primarily. I'm banging it for

man's mind, which means our minds, MY mind. Consciousness is either all we have to give us our

sublime edge - or, man is very small. I resist any hint of bringing it into the realms of mundane, automatic, 'materialist', or collective.

I mean, what happens when an individual rids himself of all the detritus of God, gods, fairies and everything

that goes bump in the night? He looks round and can't see anything to replace it... or can't he?

Hold on. Could it be...? Hell, yes - consciousness. More precisely, man's consciousness, most

precisely, HIS.

Not only memory, emotion, instinct, etc. that we share with our animal cousins - but the extended

range: the inseparable package-deal, of volition, conceptualization and self-awareness.

Damn! What'd happen if it were found that each, individual man has it in his own power to be

conceptual by choice, motivated by consciousness of existence, and by his self-awareness? That consciousness

is not shared, not 'group-consciousness', which can be farmed out to/gathered by, other people? That once God was dispensed with by that man, only man's consciousness, 'the best of the best', remains. Nothing in the known universe tops it.

God is dead; long live the mind.

Scary thoughts: the man would have to take himself a bit more seriously, for starters.

He would have to embrace hugely more self-responsibility for the contents of his consciousness.

He would have to act as his sole authority on what he knows - at any given moment - and right or wrong, accept the consequences.

And, horror of horrors! this might even give him ideas above his station, and the conviction that his (and all individual human life) is an "end in itself".

We well know where that leads - next thing, he's creating some egoist, "selfish" morality from it all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'material' aspect is that without matter, no brain function can exist at all. Even the the most intricate neural networks can only exist with a material substrate.

Of course. Also a simplistic view of materialism, which nobody denies. Existence precedes

consciousness, right?

No evidence indicating the contrary has been discovered so far.

Do you - Angela - identify yourself by atoms of matter? By your "material substrate"?

I'm no reductionist; the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

But when physicist Lawrence Krauss made, in a lecture, this wonderful remark: "You are all stardust!", I did not have a reductionist feeling at all, but had a 'cosmic feeling' of elation instead . ..! :smile:

http://amiquote.tumb...-stardust-every

“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”

.

[Lawrence Krauss, American Theoretical Physicist who is Professor of Physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Director of the Origins Project at the Arizona State University, A Universe From Nothing, AAI 2009].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, the difference between a minute's memory and no memory at all is infinite.

The difference between a two dimensional shape and a three dimensional shape...

It's an interesting story that you posted, but "core consciousness" is not as clear as "awareness".

We should all be able to agree that experience = awareness, but experience does not necessitate memory... because experience happens in the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting story that you posted, but "core consciousness" is not as clear as "awareness".

I am not following. You wrote (to Tony) "[D]o you not think that awareness without memory is possible?

My post illustrated this notion with reference to HM, and the hypothesis of Damasio. If you followed my link above to 'Core consciousness,' you will have read this:

In António Damásio's theory of consciousness, core consciousness describes a hypothesized level of awareness facilitated by neural structures of most animals that allows them to be aware of and react to their environment.[1] In Damásio's theory, core consciousness occurs when the brain’s representation devices generate a representation of the relationship between the organism (the self) and an environmental stimulus. The process preceding core consciousness is protoself, the one following it is extended consciousness.

What I find odd about our thread here is that, yes, we can indeed restrict ourselves to consider only what Rand has written about consciousness, or restrict ourselves to thinking about consciousness in purely adult human terms. I had thought I was adding to the breadth of understanding, but I think I may have failed. Sorry about that!

To PDS, who tried to whistle up an Old Dog from the gallery, I have been compiling a collection from Rand's publications (with great help from the Lexicon) that pertain to consciousness. I will post that in a day or so, with some commentary.

Calvin, If we try to define consciousness simply, reductively, strictly, I think we lose some deeper understanding and appreciation of the wonder of consciousness in humans. To my mind, it is fine to delimit the boundary between human and non-human consciousness for certain purposes, but to understand that we share levels or elements of consciousness with other animals deepens our understanding of our abilities and our heritage.

So, when you say we do not need a definition, we need only rely on a Randian axiom, I want to beat my head against the wall. It feels like a curb on thought.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I don't agree with Rand's take on consciousness. I'm not trying to define consciousness simply, but identify it's parts.

Awareness is the main part of consciousness. Being able to experience is not necessarily consciousness, but what other part(s) allow for thought? And are there different levels of consciousness?

I don't think animals have a different kind of consciousness than us, but rather a different level of consciousness. They have awareness, just like us, they have enough self-awareness to make basic choices (yes, choices, not purely instinctual--like an insect or something), however they do not have nearly as much capacity to retain information and thus identify their surroundings on very shallow level.

Experience and awareness assume an experiencer... a single "place" the experience goes to. I'd say an ant is aware, but not conscious. It's alive, and it's physical parts are cooperating as a single unit; and I assume there is something receiving the signals that tell it where water or food is, or whatever else. I don't believe an ant is self-aware, and therefor doesn't make choices, but I believe it experiences something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self awareness = making choices = conceptual consciousness.

Self awareness = conceptual consciousness = making choices.

You've made no case for either proposition. A dog has self awareness but no conceptual consciouness and therefore no free will implied by making choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'material' aspect is that without matter, no brain function can exist at all. Even the the most intricate neural networks can only exist with a material substrate.

Of course. Also a simplistic view of materialism, which nobody denies. Existence precedes

consciousness, right?

No evidence indicating the contrary has been discovered so far.

No evidence indicating the contrary to my fond belief that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistacchio flavored halva has been discovered yet. So I'm neither wrong, nor right...'til 'they' do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

Consciousness is an Objectivist axiom, so it shouldn't need a definition any more than existence needs a definition.

Awareness/experience is not synonymous with consciousness, and this is what I'd argue is the true axiom. Consciousness is a level of awareness that includes memory--which gives context/depth to experience.

In a moment we not only experience sensory information but also retained sensory information from memory... It's equivalent to the difference between a two-dimensional shape and a three-dimensional shape.

Re: the need for a definition.

It is self-evident--when one looks outward--that existence exists.

It is not self-evident--when one looks inward--what consiousness is, however. The glib support for this latter point is the 100+ opinions on this thread, including the opening line of this thread.

We keep discussing what consciousness does, and how it relates to memory, perception, etc. My question is what is cosciousness, qua consciousness, to quote a phrase...

I recall reading GHS's Atheism, The Case Against God over 25 years ago, and being struck by George's important distinction--when talking about God--between what God does, as opposed to who God is. This distinction presents a quagmire for those who believe in God, i.e., the God-fearer conflates the attributes of God with God himself. To say that "God is love" does not tell us what God is. To say that God is merciful does not tell us what God is. And on and on.

I ask the question earnestly: do we have the same quagmire here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When "one looks inward", one is aware of the EFFECTS of consciousness: aware of

the faculty, and the existence-derived contents. Not what it IS.

"An AXIOM is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to

accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."

I'd estimate the corollary of that is: "...an axiom frustrates its proponents by the

fact that they have to use it, to prove it."

Identifying 'consciousness', via consciousness, is tautological,imo (but I

am yet a pup...)

Btw, ItOE is worthwhile, if you've not read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

Consciousness is an Objectivist axiom, so it shouldn't need a definition any more than existence needs a definition.

Awareness/experience is not synonymous with consciousness, and this is what I'd argue is the true axiom. Consciousness is a level of awareness that includes memory--which gives context/depth to experience.

In a moment we not only experience sensory information but also retained sensory information from memory... It's equivalent to the difference between a two-dimensional shape and a three-dimensional shape.

Re: the need for a definition.

It is self-evident--when one looks outward--that existence exists.

It is not self-evident--when one looks inward--what consiousness is, however. The glib support for this latter point is the 100+ opinions on this thread, including the opening line of this thread.

We keep discussing what consciousness does, and how it relates to memory, perception, etc. My question is what is cosciousness, qua consciousness, to quote a phrase...

I recall reading GHS's Atheism, The Case Against God over 25 years ago, and being struck by George's important distinction--when talking about God--between what God does, as opposed to who God is. This distinction presents a quagmire for those who believe in God, i.e., the God-fearer conflates the attributes of God with God himself. To say that "God is love" does not tell us what God is. To say that God is merciful does not tell us what God is. And on and on.

I ask the question earnestly: do we have the same quagmire here?

We talk about a living thing "being" conscious. What is conscious? The body?

Really, when we talk about a person, we are referring to consciousness, not the body... So to say, "He is conscious," for example, is a bit confusing. Who/what is "he" without consciousness??

Then considering how people can change, we can ask whether a person is the experiencer or is the person the actions? We have all experienced what it's like to be many different things, but were we not ourselves in each one of those experiences?

So, is consciousness to a body what electricity is to an electronic device? Electricity does different things depending on what it's powering, are the effects of consciousness determined by the brain it's controlling? And does that lead us to determinism?

I wonder if all matter is aware and can collaborate to the stage of consciousness...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

Consciousness is an Objectivist axiom, so it shouldn't need a definition any more than existence needs a definition.

Awareness/experience is not synonymous with consciousness, and this is what I'd argue is the true axiom. Consciousness is a level of awareness that includes memory--which gives context/depth to experience.

In a moment we not only experience sensory information but also retained sensory information from memory... It's equivalent to the difference between a two-dimensional shape and a three-dimensional shape.

Re: the need for a definition.

It is self-evident--when one looks outward--that existence exists.

It is not self-evident--when one looks inward--what consiousness is, however. The glib support for this latter point is the 100+ opinions on this thread, including the opening line of this thread.

We keep discussing what consciousness does, and how it relates to memory, perception, etc. My question is what is cosciousness, qua consciousness, to quote a phrase...

I recall reading GHS's Atheism, The Case Against God over 25 years ago, and being struck by George's important distinction--when talking about God--between what God does, as opposed to who God is. This distinction presents a quagmire for those who believe in God, i.e., the God-fearer conflates the attributes of God with God himself. To say that "God is love" does not tell us what God is. To say that God is merciful does not tell us what God is. And on and on.

I ask the question earnestly: do we have the same quagmire here?

We talk about a living thing "being" conscious. What is conscious? The body?

Really, when we talk about a person, we are referring to consciousness, not the body... So to say, "He is conscious," for example, is a bit confusing. Who/what is "he" without consciousness??

Then considering how people can change, we can ask whether a person is the experiencer or is the person the actions? We have all experienced what it's like to be many different things, but were we not ourselves in each one of those experiences?

So, is consciousness to a body what electricity is to an electronic device? Electricity does different things depending on what it's powering, are the effects of consciousness determined by the brain it's controlling? And does that lead us to determinism?

I wonder if all matter is aware and can collaborate to the stage of consciousness...

Your latter point about electricity conjures up Aristotle's view of the soul. See here, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting, thanks. I never got into philosophers, but that is a good use of the word soul... if I understood what I read.

Even if this is not what Aristotle meant, I think it is useful to think of the "soul" as the self, and what it is exactly is the collaboration of what makes up a body. In this context a plant has a soul just as much as a conscious animal has one; just a different kind.

Our bodies, and brains, are made up of so many little pieces, and yet we function, and experience, as a single unit. "Soul" is a good label for that, I think. I didn't like the word, but this fits for me.

Again, I may have misinterpreted what I read a bit, but I like it. Thanks PDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting, thanks. I never got into philosophers, but that is a good use of the word soul... if I understood what I read.

Even if this is not what Aristotle meant, I think it is useful to think of the "soul" as the self, and what it is exactly is the collaboration of what makes up a body. In this context a plant has a soul just as much as a conscious animal has one; just a different kind.

Our bodies, and brains, are made up of so many little pieces, and yet we function, and experience, as a single unit. "Soul" is a good label for that, I think. I didn't like the word, but this fits for me.

Again, I may have misinterpreted what I read a bit, but I like it. Thanks PDS.

I suspect it is very difficult for the Western mind to think of soul the way Aristotle envisioned, mainly because so many of us think of our "soul" the soul that is either tortured or rewarded in the afterlife promised by Western religions. The impact of these religions, especially Christianity, is like a tune we can't get out of our heads--especially when thinking of the term soul.

But I do think you are reading Aristotle right.

Rand talks a fair amount about the soul and body being integrated, but I don't recall her ever defining what she meant by the term. She almost seems to equate the soul and consciousness, even expressly so in Galt's speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Existence precedes consciousness, right?

No evidence indicating the contrary has been discovered so far.

No evidence indicating the contrary to my fond belief that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistacchio flavored halva has been discovered yet. So I'm neither wrong, nor right...'til 'they' do.

But how likely is it that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistachio flavored halva? Not a scintilla of evidence exists which would point in that direction. :smile:

This reminds me Bertrand Russell's famous "cosmic teapot" example:

http://en.wikipedia....ll's_teapot

Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

But as for existence preceding consciousness, we do have empirical evidence: for example, we observe that a living entity has to exist first before consciousness can manifest itself in that entity.

Whereas those who assert that 'consciousness precedes existence' cannot provide any empirical data to support their assertion.

Such purely subjective, unsupported claims belong to the realm of mere belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No evidence indicating the contrary to my fond belief that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistacchio flavored halva has been discovered yet. So I'm neither wrong, nor right...'til 'they' do.

But how likely is it that the moons of Jupiter are composed of pistachio flavored halva? Not a scintilla of evidence exists which would

I think somebody is kiddink here. The moons of Jupiter are 67 in number. The major moons we know as Io, Callisto, Ganymede and Europa.

Maybe Tony is playing with his idiosyncratic concept of 'skepticism,' wherein nothing can be known. Funny in this context (of Halva with pistacchio).

But, to play along with the jest, Io is believed to be composed of silicate rock, with a molten iron or iron sulfide core. Most of the surface is shows evidence of sulfur or sulfur dioxide 'frost' (according to WIkipedia). Io is the first image below. I can see how Tony might mistake this for halvah in his current lighthearted mood. I will leave it to him to give us some counter-evidence supporting his "fond belief" about items in our solar system.

Ipc5.png

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@Brant, my geuss is his extensive experience in neurosurgery and this; http://www.lifebeyon...riculum-vitae-0 ,suggests he has done quite a bit of research.

Here is the doctor's explanation for consciousness: "For me, it's become clear that the best way to look at it is to turn it around and realize that consciousness exists in a much richer form, free and independent of the brain, which has everything to do with the eternity of our souls and the fact that our awareness, our consciousness, our soul, our spirit, does not depend on the existence of the brain in the physical universe. In fact, it's freed up to a much richer knowing when we're outside."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a fairly interesting quote from Einstein on this topic: "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

So, is it fair to say that we are struggling to define consciousness?

I do notice that some of the Big Dogs that post on this forum are not participating in this thread.

Note to OL Big Dogs: if you are aware of some source material for an Objectivist definition of consiousness, would you please point us in the appropriate direction? Thanks in advance.

What a great thread.

Apparently, the "big dogs" were not conscious enough to look inward at this thread and get the memo.

ATTENTION ALL BIG OL DOGS:

Your inward and outward gaze is required on this thread.

german-shepherd-dog-barking-smiley-emotisleeping-puppy-smiley-emoticon.gif

A...

trying to become fully conscious and inwardly looking outward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now