What is consciousness?

[ydoaPs]

Only one example: the phenomenon of our unique identity. While we are constantly changing throughout our lifes (and so are our brains) we remaining the ONE and te SAME person

This needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact.

 

The only feasible explanation is the presence of soul that renders us our uniqueness.

Non-sequiter.

[Chupacabra]

This needs to be proven before it can be stated as fact

 

What kind of prove you suppose here? To prove anything about consciousness, one should observe it. And there are no objective means to do it. One could observe behavior, reactions, brain waves, etc., but not conscious per se. As a matter of fact, introspection is the only possible method to directly observe consciousness and its properties. And one of the properties we all surely introspect is our sense of uniqueness and oneness throughout our lives. The other one is a strong perception of the certain unique "control center" receiving all perceptions and guiding all voluntary acts. Another one is a strong sense of the presence of free will.

 

The problem is that modern science tends to discard knowledge provided by introspection on the ground of its "subjectiveness". The point is, however, that there aren't any other source of information about consciousness. So we either somehow use this "subjective" knonwledge or abandon any effort to study consciousness at all

[bascule]

What kind of prove you suppose here? To prove anything about consciousness, one should observe it. And there are no objective means to do it.

 

You discount all of cognitive science. Cognitive scientists have performed repeatable double-blind experiments on the observation of various phenomena, with results which substantially outweigh those of chance.

 

One could observe behavior, reactions, brain waves, etc., but not conscious per se.

 

While not "directly observing consciousness", cognitive science experiments generate repeatable results based on the accounts of (supposedly) conscious observers, i.e human participants.

 

As a matter of fact, introspection is the only possible method to directly observe consciousness and its properties.

 

And an unscientific one, as there is no third party to mediate the results

 

And one of the properties we all surely introspect is our sense of uniqueness and oneness throughout our lives.

 

Not being privy to the consciousness of others, how can you know your experience is unique and exclusively your own?

 

The other one is a strong perception of the certain unique "control center" receiving all perceptions and guiding all voluntary acts.

 

And what's to say that control center isn't subject to the actions of physical phenomena?

 

Another one is a strong sense of the presence of free will.

 

I'm not going down that road...

 

The problem is that modern science tends to discard knowledge provided by introspection on the ground of its "subjectiveness".

 

It's impossible to scrutinize the anecdotes of an individual scientifically, at least in the same way it's possible to scrutinize the statistical distributions of anecdotes of multiple observers as performed under the context of a double-blind scientific experiment.

 

[quiote]The point is, however, that there aren't any other source of information about consciousness.

 

That assumes things like physicalism, materialism, epiphenominalism, and functionalism are false...

 

So we either somehow use this "subjective" knonwledge or abandon any effort to study consciousness at all

 

Or we seek to solve the mind/body problem scientifically. There are several potential routes. One is modeling the human brain computationally and producing a conscious entity.

[Chupacabra]

And an unscientific one, as there is no third party to mediate the results

It's impossible to scrutinize the anecdotes of an individual scientifically, at least in the same way it's possible to scrutinize the statistical distributions of anecdotes of multiple observers as performed under the context of a double-blind scientific experiment.

 

But most people get the similar results through it, e.g. the feeling of free will, the feeling of personal identity throughout their lives. etc.

 

And what's to say that control center isn't subject to the actions of physical phenomena?

 

"Being subject to the actions of physical phenomena" doesn't equate to "being a physical phenomenon"

 

Or we seek to solve the mind/body problem scientifically. There are several potential routes. One is modeling the human brain computationally and producing a conscious entity.

 

How would you tell the entity you'd produce IS conscious? Even if it perfectly mimics human behavior, how to be sure it really posess consciousness at all? The problem is: how to describe conscious, how to distinguish its peculiar properties, which are objectively observable?

[Royston]

How would you tell the entity you'd produce IS conscious?

 

By not programming a response algorithm for e.g the mirror test, if the entity is truly self aware, it should react accordingly without the need for that specific programme. Otherwise it is just mimicking consciousness.

 

I'm not sure what other tests could be conducted to prove that the entity is indeed conscious, AFAIK the mirror test is the only one so far.

[iNow]

You're essentially asking, "How does one tell that an entity demonstrates or does not demonstrate this undefined concept we call consciousness?" Without definition and clear measurable parameters, the rest is pretty much a waste of time.

 

 

Btw... the mirror test is an examination of self-awareness, not consciousness.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

 

 

There is some interesting work being done on the five levels of self-awareness, a chronological progression from birth to about 4-5 years of age.

 

http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/Five%20levels%20.pdf

[Royston]

Btw... the mirror test is an examination of self-awareness, not consciousness.

 

Going by the previous posts, I thought that one of the areas of consciousness they were discussing was self awareness i.e a computational model of the human brain. Rather a pointless venture if the goal wasn't self awareness...but maybe I misread. Obviously consciousness would include sapience, sentience and subjective thought as well. I just used the mirror test as one example.

 

Thanks for the links BTW

 

EDIT: Right, just read my last post again...was a little confusing.

[bascule]

How would you tell the entity you'd produce IS conscious? Even if it perfectly mimics human behavior, how to be sure it really posess consciousness at all? The problem is: how to describe conscious, how to distinguish its peculiar properties, which are objectively observable?

 

How do you distinguish between a "real" conscious entity and a p-zombie? I don't know. Are you a p-zombie? If not, prove it.

[Chupacabra]

How do you distinguish between a "real" conscious entity and a p-zombie? I don't know. Are you a p-zombie? If not, prove it.

 

The point is: it CANNOT by proven by whatever rational means, at least at the present state of science. However, I'm almost sure people with whom I closely interact aren't p-zombies. This certainty comes not from reason but from a sort of empathy.

 

You should recognize that reason in the form of logical deduction is't alone capable of providing all information on reality, and it was proven many times by many people, back from Hume to Goedel. Some other sources of information are necessarry, and empathy is one of these, at least while a real p-zombie is built by scientists capable of passing the most complicated Turing test.

[bascule]

The point is: it CANNOT by proven by whatever rational means, at least at the present state of science. However, I'm almost sure people with whom I closely interact aren't p-zombies. This certainty comes not from reason but from a sort of empathy.

 

Scientifically distinguishing between entities which are "really" conscious and p-zombies would require a definition of consciousness which is partly scientific and partly metaphysical.

 

I certainly don't believe such a definition is impossible to verify empirically. Functionalism would be an example of such a statement.

 

You should recognize that reason in the form of logical deduction is't alone capable of providing all information on reality, and it was proven many times by many people, back from Hume to Goedel.

 

Okay, not sure why that's relevant to the topic at hand. Hume is tangentially, but you should really be discussing Kant here, especially if this is all coming down to the mind/body problem (with the assertion that science is incapable of ever objectively studying the former).

 

Some other sources of information are necessarry, and empathy is one of these, at least while a real p-zombie is built by scientists capable of passing the most complicated Turing test.

 

This certainly goes back to Dennett's argument against p-zombies: if a p-zombie cannot be discerned from a conscious entity, what makes it a p-zombie? How is it qualitatively different? Can something lack the property of "consciousness" yet be indiscernible from conscious entities?

[Chupacabra]

Scientifically distinguishing between entities which are "really" conscious and p-zombies would require a definition of consciousness which is partly scientific and partly metaphysical.

I certainly don't believe such a definition is impossible to verify empirically. Functionalism would be an example of such a statement.

 

Functionalism rather evades the issue. F. e., it gives no account on qualia and other important properties of consciousness.

 

Okay, not sure why that's relevant to the topic at hand. Hume is tangentially, but you should really be discussing Kant here, especially if this is all coming down to the mind/body problem (with the assertion that science is incapable of ever objectively studying the former).

 

I mean that dismissing such sources of knowledge as intuition, introspection and empathy on the grounds of thier being "unscientific" is not reasonable, as much of the content of common science may be labeled "unscientific" as well.

 

This certainly goes back to Dennett's argument against p-zombies: if a p-zombie cannot be discerned from a conscious entity, what makes it a p-zombie? How is it qualitatively different? Can something lack the property of "consciousness" yet be indiscernible from conscious entities?

 

P-zombie is different by not perceiving qualia, not perceiving oneself, being in fact a soulless machine. It is totally different from the point of view of itself. The question is: is it different from the viewpoint of an external observer? As we presumably obtain all the information about external world through our "physical" senses, we cannot discern a real p-zombie (would it really exist). We would be able to do this if we posess some non-physical means of communacation between souls, and it is a debatable issue by itself.

[bascule]

Functionalism rather evades the issue. F. e., it gives no account on qualia and other important properties of consciousness.

 

I don't particularly ascribe to the idea of "qualia" as being anything more than noumena, or in Dennett's bridged view of noumena and phenomena, a "phenom".

 

The intrinsic and ineffable qualities ascribed to them seem like little more than arbitrary relationships. Dennett had a though experiment where neuroscientists tinker with your brain and crosslink two particular "qualia", say "redness" and "greenness". Your perception of these two colors is the complete opposite of what it was before, but from your perspective nothing has changed. You'll continue to stop at red (now green) lights and go when you see green (now red) ones. Despite how different redness may have seemed to you from greenness before, you'll still use the same language to describe the new red as you did the old. If that's the case, what intrinsic and ineffable qualities does redness really have?

 

I mean that dismissing such sources of knowledge as intuition, introspection and empathy on the grounds of thier being "unscientific" is not reasonable, as much of the content of common science may be labeled "unscientific" as well.

 

It's impossible to objectively introspect.

 

P-zombie is different by not perceiving qualia, not perceiving oneself, being in fact a soulless machine. It is totally different from the point of view of itself. The question is: is it different from the viewpoint of an external observer? As we presumably obtain all the information about external world through our "physical" senses, we cannot discern a real p-zombie (would it really exist). We would be able to do this if we posess some non-physical means of communacation between souls, and it is a debatable issue by itself.

 

Dennett's point was that a p-zombie is for all intents and purposes conscious if it is indiscernible from other conscious entities. Whatever it's doing, despite lacking the magic "conscious" property (which clearly means something quite different to me than it does to you), is functionally equivalent.

 

While you claim that a p-zombie lacks "qualia" and I-ness/self-representation, it would certainly attest to possess both these properties. It could describe to you what "redness" is in endless variation and metaphor. It'd be able to confer to you its hopes and dreams, its long term plans, life goals, fears, etc. It'd be able to point out its own foibles.

 

It'd have to do a very, very good job of magically "faking" possession of the properties it lacks. Otherwise, you'd realize it wasn't conscious.

[pelastration]

Many of you may not like my question because there is no definitive answer.

is our consciousness simply the result of a network of neural circuits? or could it be a electro-magnetic energy "in-phase" with this space-time dimension.

even still, could the brains impulses be generating that energy? or are the impulses a result of extra-dimensional em stimulation.

 

Physicist's have already observed particles "popping" in and out of existence. apparently phasing to another dimension. so does the act of a particle in the brain coming back cause a chain of neural networks to fire? could this explain spontaneous human combustion? Hallucinations? even the visions that psychics claim to have? where does the consciousness go when a person is in a coma? is it still there? Will we ever know what our consciousness is? how it works? what its potential is?

 

There has always been someone who does not fit into the typical templates of psychology and science.

 

I'm asking for both conventional and non-conventional thinkers to answer this post.

Hi Reyam,

 

Starting from the concept of a dynamic background membrane (non-breakable) multi-layered holons will have the possibility to store new information in sub-holons. That new information changes their frequencies. This counts also for consciousness. Consciousness is then the constant dynamics between and in holons and sub-holons, where the interaction can go by direct physical processes between holons, but also over the membrane parts which mediate vibrations. Just like a water-tube transports water or liquid, but can also transmit morse signals.

You can find more on this approach on this and next webpages.

 

Dirk

[granpa]

consciousness is awareness of being aware

[iNow]

Is my dog aware that he is aware? I'm not sure, but I know without a doubt that he's conscious.

[granpa]

is your dog aware (of anything)?

[iNow]

Absolutely, without question.

[etcetcetc00]

This thread is terrible. You can't describe anything by the sum of its parts. You can't tell someone what a car is by telling them how big it is, what color it is, what it's made of or any of that. You certainly cannot describe the phenomena of consciousness by electrical activity, as consciousness is not a property of electricity. You cannot say it is the awareness of itself or its surroundings, because that is just something it does, it is just a characteristic of the whole thing. Abstract thought is just something it is capable of. My car can play cd's but it's not a cd player. I think you get the point.

 

I just don't see how everyone can respond to this thread with their partial answers and still expect it to get somewhere. If mankind stopped explaining the sun as something hot and yellow in the sky that goes away every night, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere. It's like we're all blind men trying to figure out the Mona Lisa.