lowest level of consciousness

[Cognition]

I wouldn't mind defining a human brain and human cognition as nothing more than just a whole lot of interconnected neurons and that's it....

If we would be an alien species that was extremely intelligent but didn't know anything about consciousness, would we discover it while exploring the human brain? I am not sure about it, since we have not discovered anything at all that seems to point to consciousness (at least the hard problem of consciousness which also seems to be the subjective most salient aspect of it). So, I agree with francis Crick that we are nothing more than neurons, but we still need to discover what causes consciousness. Some people maintain that we should not concern ourselves with it, since it is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain. Perhaps that is right, but if that is so, we still have this explanation-gap that is not present with other emergent properties. We can understand an emergent property like "driving" of a car that is caused by all the individual components of the car working together. But that kind of understanding is not (yet) available for the brain-components causing consciousness

[Peels]

All conscious forms are composed of neurons that are not themselves conscious. Consciousness occurred, when many different kinds of neurons are connected in some ways.

 

To solve the consciousness puzzle, one needs to answer why, when and how consciousness was evolved. Therefore, in my opinion, the first step is to figure out the transition point from non-conscious to conscious.

[sunspot]

If one defines consciousness as self awareness, this implies imagination. In other words, if one had no imagination, one would respond in a mechanical way to sensory stimulus. With imagination, consciousness can linger in the imagination, thereby disrupting a purely mechanical sensory feedback loop. The distinction between these two states of mind is the basis for self awareness.

[bombus]

What is the lowest level of consciousness possible?

 

Nematodes have the lowest, according to Penrose and Hameroff. They have the minimum number of neurons to create a level of conciousness.

[Peels]

If one defines consciousness as self awareness, this implies imagination. In other words, if one had no imagination, one would respond in a mechanical way to sensory stimulus. With imagination, consciousness can linger in the imagination, thereby disrupting a purely mechanical sensory feedback loop. The distinction between these two states of mind is the basis for self awareness.

 

In my opinion, a new born human baby has consciousness, but not self-awareness. Self-awareness is developed through conscious learning. It is a product of consciousness. Language and imagination are all the same cases. One could not perform imagination without a saved memory bank. However, a human can still be conscious even lost all his memory.

[kontantin]

What is the lowest level of consciousness possible?

 

Infinite levels of consciousness.

 

"The plants exist on levels of consciousness from one through seven. They are on a vibrational rate on the levels one through seven. It is the same pattern.

 

 

 

Animals exist on the levels of consciousness from eight through fourteen, and when a person attains, when a consciousness attains level fourteen, it can no longer go any higher unless it is willing to change its form of consciousness.

 

 

 

Levels of consciousness from fifteen through twenty-one are what you call human life on this earth.

 

 

 

When a person progresses to level of consciousness twenty one, he then has the choice of going higher or staying within the realm of human form, but he cannot go higher unless he is willing to give up human form."

 

"Far Journeys" R. Monroe. From experience "out of body".

Chemical and physiological processes provide energy for low levels of consciousness.

The subtle energy of the universe provide energy for higher levels (when we is "out of body", Soul ascension, 28 or more levels) of consciousness through the chakras system.

 

 

 

We can see how the structure of the chakras system becomes more complex in the development process animal and humans. Levels of consciousness and energy are determined by the level (complexity) of the organization.

 

Infinite expansion of consciousness & its higher levels.

[Marat]

When people perform relatively simple but highly routine tasks, such as driving home over a familiar route, they sometimes report that they were not aware of anything that happened during their journey. They seem to wake up when they get home and can't recall much if anything of what occurred. This state seems like a good candidate for the phrase, "X was in a state of diminished consciousness, or at a lower level of consciousness."

 

When people awaken from anesthesia they can often report that they are aware that time has passed but they were not aware of anything that occurred during this time. Here again, this sense of vacuuous time duration seems another good candidate for a mental state being properly described as "a lower level of consciousness."

 

In my work I often deal with hypoglycemic patients, who during these states report being aware of sensations in a dim way but of having no self-awareness or capacity for higher reflection involving memory, orientation to their present environment, or capability of making rational responses to what is happening, so here again, we seem to have a good candidate state for applying the phrase, "lower level of consciousness."

 

Much of this discussion seems purely semantic, since the meaning of words is set by the conventions of the linguistic community, and 'semi-conscious' or 'in a state of diminished consciousness' are phrases we can all use and understand, and we find them useful either to describe our own states sometimes (e.g., on first waking up) or the apparent states of others. Philosophers might want to use 'consciousness' in some special sense for their own work such that it refers to any state of awareness of anything at any degree of clarity and reflection, even the lowest, and this strained definition would make it true that this minimal 'consciousness' was either present or not. But medicine would be unnecessarily restricted if it could only use that definition.

[tar]

Glider,

 

There are a lot of "kinds" of pain that I have experienced in my life. Tooth aches, stubbed toes, cuts, seeing my girlfriend in the arms of another, watching somebody make the wrong decision, realizing I have made a terrible mistake, etc.

 

What argues against Cognition's "qualia" stance, is that chances are, you have experienced similar types of pain and can therefore put yourself in my shoes, in the above situations, and "know" what kind of pain I am talking about, and the kind of pain I probably experienced in the above pain situations.

 

No doubt, people have different "pain" thresholds, which I would consider the point at which NOTHING else occurs but attention to it.

 

But in any case, I would guess that pain is our body's/mind's/heart's way of telling us something is wrong.

 

Cognition easily understands the situation others are in, by considering how he/she would "feel" being in the same situation.

 

You can not "know" all the sensation inputs, and all the accrued memories, that an unresponsive patient is experiencing, and what is demanding their attention at any particular moment, but you can make a resonable guess at what you would do, or want done to end the "pain" that they are probably in, given the situation you observe them to be in.

 

So, I would say that the lowest level of consciousness, would be on the low end of the scale measuring ones awareness of their own state.

 

It is probably important in this discussion to decide whether we are talking about "human consciousness", or about awareness in general, in which case the bimetal strip might be a candidate.

 

And "human consciousness" has some very many component correlates with other mammals, and by extention with other life forms.

 

May be that "life" and the distinction between inanimate and animate, defines the boundry between that without, and that with consciousness.

 

And somewhere in that neighborhood, we would find that with the lowest level of consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR2

[kontantin]

I agree that important to decide the terminology and the meaning of the these terms. But unfortunately there are so many different opinions, some of which contradict others. Most definitions do not reflect the diversity of the available experimental data from different research areas. Some terminology from one areas of research do not knows or ignores the data from other areas.

 

state of consciousness, level of consciousness or awareness, brain & consciousness, "human consciousness" & "animal consciousness".

 

When people know very little about the subject, they give the subject of one or two names as synonyms. For example, in the Eskimo language has more than 30 different terms to refer to the appropriate snow conditions. It is very important information for living in the north.

 

Regards

[tar]

excuse me, I posted after reading #20, I thought is was the last post.

 

After reading the rest, I would like to address Peel's quest for the element sufficient and necessary for consiousness.

 

I am thinking it is pleasure and pain. One thing, in the sense that the absence of the one is usually the other.

 

This is the "thing" perhaps.

 

If we could put inanimate stuff together in such a way as the combination would "feel" this and react to maintain the pleasure, and avoid the pain...

 

This line of thought is based on looking for a "reason", why a pattern would seek to maintain itself. That is, "outside" the normal purvue of accidental combinations of energy exchange.

 

Survival of the fittest, yes. But what is "good" about survival that causes the organism to seek it? Most life operates in such a fashion as to avoid certain states, and to make efforts to maintain others. On some level, the organism must be "aware" of the difference.

 

Consider this. We have a predictive motor simulator, that rehearses motor neuron firing, before actually firing the motor neurons, that finds the timing and combination that will result in the desired muscle movement. This, an evolved mechanism that uses the historical results (learned) of certain combinations that will result in the "pleasing" movement.

 

Not difficult to imagine such a facility being repurposed to predict the results of efforts expended on the surroundings outside the nervous system. (Given of course the millions of years we have had to develop such a thing.)

 

But still, regardless of the complexity we have achieved, and our ability to use and share symbols and metaphors and tools, there remains a basic underlying purpose, to maintain the "good" and avoid the "bad".

 

Peel, could this be the "thing"?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 12, 2011 by tar

[Marat]

With respect to the earlier discussion about consciousness being just a collection of connected neurons, I think that two qualifications are necessary. First, to avoid the 'myth of cerebral localization,' we should note that human consciousness is always informed by things going on throughout the body, so hormones, feedback from the peripheral nervous system, characteristics of the circulation, etc., are all influencing thinking, so consciousness is located throughout the body. A second point is that while our consciousness correlates with having an intact, healthy, and functioning set of connected neurons in our head, that anatomical mass doesn't really 'explain' what consciousness is, any more than sex hormones provide an adequate account of human romance, rather than just being the causal ground of it.

 

Some people are now arguing that we understand the brain poorly if we view it as an organ articulated by evolution to help us think, which is not its ultimate purpose. In fact, the ultimate purpose of the brain is to promote our survival, which might in some cases mean developing a talent not to think rationally about certain things, like good reasons we might rationally have to be terrified, in despair, or paralyzed by impending death.

[PhDwannabe]

When people know very little about the subject, they give the subject of one or two names as synonyms. For example, in the Eskimo language has more than 30 different terms to refer to the appropriate snow conditions. It is very important information for living in the north.

 

When people know very little about, well, any number of different subjects, they cite face-slapping urban legends like the classic Eskimo Words for Snow. (To say nothing of the fact that there isn't an "Eskimo Language," rather, there are lots of separate Inuit languages spoken by distinct Inuit peoples.) There are more than, let's say, 30 webpages, from the entry on Wikipedia, to the sources cited by Wikipedia, to--if you can believe this--things not even cited by Wikipedia, which can clear that up quickly. Not being fooled by urban legends is very important for living on planet earth.

[Marat]

Regardless of the accuracy of the specific example used, the poster's general observation was correct and useful for the point he was making. Languages certainly do reflect their culture's concerns by having a larger and more specific vocabulary to address issues of particular interest to them. For example, the philosophically-inclined Ancient Greeks had a much larger store of abstract concepts than the other ancient languages, so while Hebrew had to get by with using 'breath' as a metaphor for 'soul,' the Greeks could already distinguish between 'psyche' and 'nous.'

[Moontanman]

I define conciousness as being the ability to use your own judgement to react to the situation.

 

 

By "your own" I mean the lifeform in question, be it a person, a cat, a horse, etc...

 

 

Do fish display qualities that suggest they decide on a course of action to take, when presented with more than once choice?

 

 

I would assert that yes fish are conscious, they do have behaviors that suggest they are aware of themselves and their surroundings.

[Marat]

The capacity for self-awareness is a key indicator of a higher level of consciousness. If you put a hat on an ape and put a mirror in front of the animal, it will comprehend that the hat is on its head, which is a measure of self-awareness not found in lower animals, which just see another creature of the same species with something odd on its head.

 

In an important experiment about octopus consciousness, it was found that octopi are sufficiently self-aware that they can visually assess a complex structure and judge whether they can fit inside it and move around within it. This was interpreted to indicate that an octopus is not just present unto the world of external experience as a dimensionless stage, knowing nothing but how it feels and what is in its environment, but that it also knows itself and how it fits into that environment as another object among the objects around it. Most animals can't manage this feat.

[Ringer]

Why is vision the criteria? Why not have animals be defined as self aware when they can differentiate between their own smell and the smell of others? Or even their own calls?

[Marat]

Good point. I don't think anyone was arguing that vision had to be the only or primary criterion of self-awareness, but rather, it is just one way to try to test the sophistication of self-awareness. For many animals smell would certainly be a more important sense to measure the contents of consciousness.

 

I often wonder what human culture would have been like if we had had the olfactory capacity of blood hounds. Would we have libraries with information encoded in a variety of scents? Would telecommunications be more concerned with reproducing the smells of distant communications and environments? We do seem to be anthropocentric in favoring visual data as the route to understanding animal intelligence.

[amanda more]

Good point. I don't think anyone was arguing that vision had to be the only or primary criterion of self-awareness, but rather, it is just one way to try to test the sophistication of self-awareness. For many animals smell would certainly be a more important sense to measure the contents of consciousness.

 

I often wonder what human culture would have been like if we had had the olfactory capacity of blood hounds. Would we have libraries with information encoded in a variety of scents? Would telecommunications be more concerned with reproducing the smells of distant communications and environments? We do seem to be anthropocentric in favoring visual data as the route to understanding animal intelligence.

 

 

I had a dog tied to the front porch (jumped, tunneled otherwise) Humans walking by were probably convinced that the interior environment was more enriching. I am not even sure if life indoors is all that enriching for humans. But I noted that for him every passing smell, movement was of interest. I was wondering since we share so much if Chimpanzees had more going for them in an olfactory sense. I do so love Pubmed yet those darn genetic studies abstracts seem especially obtuse: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687286 So perhaps we did very recently give away some nuance of a sweet flower smell and presumably our brain uses that for something else. Like a name. As I recall Shakespeare had a few lines lamenting that . . .

 

 

[Greg Boyles]

Perhaps consciousness is absolute, i.e. either you are conscious or you are not.

 

 

But there are clearly varying levels of cognition among different animals.

 

 

 

I wonder if an insect is conscious. It clearly seeks to escape from a predator that wants to eat it. Does that mean it is self aware and fears death? Compare it to an earth worm that doesn't appear have the same imperative to escape from a predator. I guess the question is if the worm is self aware and fears death but, when exposed at the soil surface, lacks the necessary sesnses to detect the presence of a predator, e.g. a bird.