DrmDoc

Agreed, my apologies.

Most definitions of consciousness describe some ethereal, unearthly quality, but your definition here is commendable because it encompasses attributes that are both testable and observable--self-awareness & environmental-awareness. Those attributes are certainly applicable to humans and I believe we can test and observe for their equivalency in many but not all subjects/objects of our observations. If we want to refine our tests and observations to include nearly all, shouldn't we refine our definition of consciousness to its testable and observable essence? The essence of consciousness isn't anything ethereal or unearthly and it's right there in your description. Strip away "self" and "environment" from your description and you will have "awareness", which is the essence of consciousness. Awareness is the essence of consciousness because we can test for its iterations in all species, but with one caveat--our test subjects must have the facility to engage observable behaviors. Without testable or observable behaviors there's no basis for our conclusions about a species' equivalency.

I agree; there's no understanding of consciousness without a foundation for reaching that understanding. Definitions based on faith, philosophies, and conjecture aren't a proper foundation because, imo, they reference notions and ideas that are either untestable or unobservable. Our spectulations about the nature of consciousness in other organisms invariably relate to the manifest nature of that quality in humans. Therefore, our definitions and basis for understanding consciousness should arise from our understanding of how that quality arises in humans. That understanding enables our ability to identify consciousness equivalency in other species.

When defining consciousness, shouldn't we begin by exploring and understand its human iteration? The only measure of consciousness that we as humans are capable of fully understanding is that measure expressed by humans because of the commonality share among humans in biology, physiology, and social experience. With humanity's iteration of consciousness as the basis for its definition, that definition should be predicated on some understanding of how human consciousness manifest. For my part in this discussion, I will not entertain any notion that human consciousness manifests without brain function and a nervous system stimulating that function. If we are assessing whether organisms as small as a bee possess's human equivalent consciousness, then we must assess the equivalency of a bee's central nervous system--but, I'm getting ahead of myself. My definition of consciousness is predicated on the empirical truth that human consciousness is a product or output of brain function. As an output of brain function, something else must occur before consciousness is produced. So, the question this raises is, what is that something? To make a much longer post short, brain output is a response to the input it receives via its connection to our nervous system. Consciousness in brain function does not occur without a neural network and the sensory awareness that connection provides--essentially, consciousness doesn't occur without awareness.

If you'll recall this OP... ...and the opening salvo in this debate... ...so I led with my "idiosyncratic definition of consciousness...." In your opinion, right? Thnaks for the reminder🤪 Curious...is there a consensus on the meaning of consciousness? Hmmm...I guess there really isn't a consensus on the meaning of consciousness😊 Admittedly, my perspective of consciousness is based on my personal study and perspective of the science primarily associated with brain function...and also a little bit of basic algebra. This perspective begins with a basic question: Can an organism possess consciousness without awareness? I believe the answer to that question is an empirical no. If true, then all definitions of consciousness begins with a perspective on the meaning of awareness...and if we're discussing awareness, what is its measure?

In previous discussions, I've defined consciousness as merely the basic awareness suggested by an organism's observed--or observable--behavioral responses to stimuli. We cannot determine organisms or objects of interest as possessing consciousness if they are incapable of producing observable behaviors suggesting that quality. Bees produce objectively observable behaviors and their behavioral responses to centuries of direct human contact suggests minimally their awareness on some level. However, if the question is does bees possess human equivalent consciousness, the answer would be suggested by whether bees are able to produce human equivalent responses to human equivalent stimuli. From another perspective, if an organism or object's reactions to stimuli suggests some basic level of awareness or consciousness, then we might ask ourselves if the attraction or repulsion between the poles of magnets suggest some level of awareness between magnets? Although not a level or measure suggestive of human awareness, I would argue that the attraction/repulsion between the poles of separate magnets suggest a type of basic awareness between magnets. For those who might argue otherwise, you should understand that from my perspective having consciousness does not necessarily confer intelligence or that an organism or object possesses a mind.

Fascinating! My son is an animator who's honing his craft while currently producing a DC fan film. Cartoon Network's, The Venture Bros, did a very humorous take on Jonny Quest...they called it the "Walking Eyeball."

Yes! My understanding precisely!

Quite true! As my perspective on the interplay between the thalamus and its reciprocal connections with surrounding brain structures evolve, my perspective on the role of the thalamus in the autistic brain continues to evolve. Although their are multiple facets to the neural interplay between the thalamus and surrounding brain structures, there's more than sufficient evidence that all behaviors we engage are executed by thalamic function. There's also sufficient evidence, in my opinion, that our thalamus engages these behaviors according to the feedback rather than commands it receives from superior or surrounding brain structures. The distinction between feedback rather than commands suggest that our thalamus executes behaviors based on neural advice rather than direction of other brain sturctures which places the thalamus in a far superior role than I previously perceived. For example, consider the explosive aggression of some CTE sufferers. Structures like the thalamus and amygdala are somewhat shielded by the cortex from intercranial trauma. It's likely that thalamic function in the CTE brain responds more readily to amygdala feedback than the prefrontal cortex due to a compromised link between the cortex and thalamus caused by head trauma. The behaviors a thalamus expresses with a CTE brain are likely compromised by weak signals from the cortex with comparatively strong and healthy amygdala signaling. If there's anything to draw from my comments here relative to dreams and dreaming is that they are everything I have previously discussed but, first and foremost, they are a feedback response to afferent resonance from the thalamus amid sleep. Relative to autism, clarity will require a bit more time and investigation.

It was my focusing on the buffering function of the thalamus through our discussion. An autistic respondent in a previous discussion in another forum of this website described their condition as like having a gatekeeper who allows entry to everyone. My epiphany, through this discussion, was that this individual's form of autism likely involves a malfunction of their thalamus' ability to buffer incoming neural impulses (external stimuli) while at the same time maintaining an ability to target the focus of their thalamus on specific and well-defined areas of feedback (behavioral commands) from superior regions of brain beyond the thalamus--it's letting all the noise in but only responding to that noise that activates a specific channel of feedback or behavioral responses. I believe I now have a better visual perception and understanding of the input/output function of the thalamus in the autistic brain. Even more, I'm beginning to consider what impact malfunction of the thalamus may have in the structual variances we find in some autistic brains--indeed, a delightful and illuminating discussion.

Much of my thoughts on this subject can be found in this discussion thread: Consciousness in Brain Function Give it a read and share your thoughts.

Much of what I understand about the dreaming brain is rooted in my perspective of its likely path of evolution. That path suggests to me that the function of recent brain developments were built upon and are likely dependent on the function of earlier developments. Mid-century experiments with diencephalic animals, as I recall, appear to confirm that no cortical activity occurs without a neural connection from the thalamus. If we agree that dreaming and dream content are efferent products of cortical activity in sleep, then that activity likely doesn't occur without an afferent neural connection from the thalamus. Therefore, the question this poses is what precisely does that afferent neural connection from the thalamus contributes to the production of dreaming? When we are awake and aware, thalamic function appears to buffer most of the neural noise it receives from the stimuli traversing its neural structure to superior brain regions from external sources. As the gateway for neural commands exiting the brain, the thalamus also executes our physical responses to the external stimuli it experiences based the feedback it receives from superior brain regions. That neural noise the thalamus experience at the outset of dreaming emerges from itself as a residual affect of its wakeful buffering rather than direct external stimuli. Although it may buffer the affects of external stimuli during the conscious state of brain function, the thalamus amid sleep is incapable of buffering the noise emanating from its own neural body as a result of its conscious experience—it’s the bell that keeps ringing after it has been struck. Countering that incessant neural ringing amid sleep requires equivalent neural feedback from superior brain regions sufficient to nullify that effect. Rather than create dream content, thalamic reverbs in sleep inspire that content. Dreaming is a feedback process where upper regions nullify thalamic reverbs in sleep with materially meaningful neural impulses (dream content) matching the neural frequency or impact of those reverbs. From my perspective, the thalamus is our instinctive, primal brain. It doesn't engage thought, it reacts and execute our outward behavioral expressions. Structures beyond the thalamus, as I perceive, informs the behaviors it executes. In my view, structures like the amygdala and prefrontal cortex mediate the reactions the thalamus executes. For example, the amygdala tells the thalamus to react with agression, while the prefrontal cortex informs the thalamus on the consequences of that agression. But what has become more profound for me is a clearer understanding of the autistic brain--particularly through our discussion.

Quite right, dreams act to counteract the affects of a noisy (active) thalamus in sleep. The exception in sleep is that this neural noise arising from the thalamus isn't necessarily occuring in the presence of the external stimuli (life experience) causing that noise. Our cortical response areas in sleep are able to detect this indirect, abstract affect life experience has on thalamic function. In sleep, our thalamus appears to reverberate from the indirect affects of life experience and our cortical responses to that reverberance serve to nullify those affects. The form of that nullification is to mirror and, thereby, cancel the energy destabilizating neural impact of that reverberance. This explain why our dream content interprets something that is indirect and abstract. I welcome your continue interest.

I think you're quite close to my thoughts on this. Both types do rely on the same neurobiology, but there's a difference I perceive in the process. To begin, as you know, the interpretive aspects of brain function is an efferent process (top-down), which infers processes that do not engage without afferent stimuli (bottom-up). The top-down processes of brain function emerge from the upper regions of the brain beyond the thalamus, while the bottom-up processes emerge through and from the thalamus. The difference between the responses of the awake and dreaming brain resides in whether the brain's top-down processes are a response to the stimuli that emerge solely from thalamus or the stimuli that traverse the thalamus from its external neural connections. Other than olfactory, as you know, all sensory input must traverse the thalamus before entering the upper regions of our central nervous system. When we are awake and aware, the responses of our upper brain regions are focused on stimuli traversing the thalamus as that stimuli may have a real physical/material impact on our wellbeing and sense of self. Accordingly, stimili traversing those neural pathways through the thalamus' external neural connections are perceived and interpreted according to their literal impact. Conversely, stimuli that emerge solely from the thalamus without a continuous neural link to that stimuli's external physical/material sources initiate a different efferent response from upper brain region. This type of stimuli is what I have termed in other discussions as the "resonant" neural affect of our life experiences. It's like that ringing in our ears that we continue to hear long after the band has stopped playing. Our thalamus continuously resonate from the affects or impact of our life experiences. As that resonance enters the upper reponse centers of our brain amid the sleep state, it is as ill defined as that ringing in our ear without a sound source. Yet, as this resonance has a homeostasis destablizing affect, our brain responses in sleep (dreaming) emerge as a counterbalance to that persistent neural noise. As a counterbalance, our sleeping brain has to generate a equivalent neural frequency (dreams) sufficient to cancel the impact of that persistent neural affect emerging from the thalamus amid the sleep state. Dreaming is an equivalency process our brain engages amid sleep to match and, thereby, quell the neural resonance persisting in the thalamus from the affects life experience. When we are awake and aware, this equivalency process involves matching and engaging an appropriate response to external stimuli, which primarily involves physical, material and literal responses. When we're dreaming, that process involves matching and engaging responses to soothe the thalamus rather than address some direct physical/material stimili. In a sense, dreaming addresses something the brain perceives as indirect or abstract--the operants of mind and emotion. I welcome your continued interest and insightful perspective.

Pardon this delayed reply but there are few whose perspective I enjoy reading and pondering as much as I do yours. Indeed, there's a distinction between the brain responses that dreaming suggest and the responses of the awake and aware brain. The conscious brain interprets the nature of its experiences by the physical/material impact of those experiences; e.g., cold is cold, light is light, and dark is dark, etc. Conversely, the dreaming brain--through comparative imagery and experiences--interprets the residual mental/emotional impact of its experiences; e.g., cold, light, and dark describe mental/emotional effects. As some may already know, our brain responses while conscious are a counterbalances to the imbalance caused by experiences that directly emerge from and impact the sensory array of our body physical. Amid the dreaming state, our brain responses are a counterbalance to the persistent neural effects of those experiences. Perhaps the most apt analogy is that life experience causes a type of neural-tinnitus within the brain and dreaming is our brain's effort to quell that malody by, in someway, quantifying its nature. My perspective is that our sense of self emerges from the thalamus and how it is impacted by its neural connections and exchanges. In that perspective, our physical/material sense of self emerges from our thalamus' afferent neural connections, while our mental/emotional sense of self emerge from its efferent neural connections. In my model of brain function, dreaming comprises our thalamus' efferent neural connections and exchanges. I am very well and in good spirit this holiday season. Thanks so much for asking and I wish you the same.