Consciousness

[shunyadragon]

AGAIN. Maybe larger print will help;

I reject Darwin and superstition, not science.

All theory is based on axioms and definitions. I reject all of Darwin's premises. His definitions are poor and overly abstract. I seriously doubt he was right about anything. He was a 19th century great who lacked modern knowledge.

Darwin and the sciences of evolution are as much science as any other science.

This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.

 

[cladking]

What else would you study if not the brain?

I believe I got to the proper answer to this question through a back door; stumbling on the natural science used by other species.

I'm not suggesting that the brain is the wrong organ to study but I believe that this study might never be able to reduce consciousness or any part of it to experiment. This is due simply to the nature of consciousness, metaphysics, and the nature of scientists.

To provide an idea on how far off we are I believe that consciousness doesn't even exist in the brain, it exists in the organism. Indeed, some simpler species even change their environments to use as mnemonics or memory.

I believe we have no choice but to use modern science in tandem with natural science to understand the consciousness and even then this "understanding" might not be possible for homo omnisciencis; it might be confined to machine intelligence. We will still benefit from the "understanding" but we won't experience it directly except in part.

 

[cladking]

In my own experience, one of the main sources confusion and awareness, in terms of consciousness, is the internal observation, you cannot see from the outside, which is we have two centers of consciousness. There is the ego, which is the center of the conscious mind, and inner self which is the center of the unconscious mind. These do not always agree and by differing, one can better notice your own ego conscious, being a reflection.

I'm in close agreement with most of your points.

However I am in less agreement with this. I believe our brain and awareness and the way in which we perceive reality is almost infinitely adaptable. So your words here are likely true from most perspectives as it applies to you but it will be less true or untrue for others.

Thanks for the post.

 

[cladking]

Being the best is not the issue. They still lacked the modern knowledge of science, which you reject. You are still stuck in a Newtonian world with an ancient religious agenda without science.

No. You are still missing the point.

Our world and our science are still based on their errors.

They made fundamental errors which they would recant if they could. But we still hold most of their beliefs, definitions, and axioms as gospel despite two centuries of experiment that shows they were wrong.

 

[Yerda]

As a result of complex advanced nervous system as in humans and the octopus. At present there is no other explanation that can form a falsifiable hypothesis based on the evidence. For example secondary consciousness has been only observed in advanced evolved complex nervous systems in higher animals. Dreaming is a subjective factor that can be observed electrically in the brain and language is also a factor only present in higher animals with secondary consciousness.

There is no other option that fits the evidence. One can vaguely appeal to supernatural source by 'arguing from ignorance' concerning what science does not know, but there is absolutely no objective evidence to justify this conclusion. The fact that there remains unanswered questions doe not justify an alternate hypothesis.

I'm an atheist, and I'm not going to argue for any supernatural force. I agree with what you're saying here. I still think there is a gap, in principle, in our understanding of matter creating experiences.

The phrase "complex advanced nervous system as in humans and the octopus" isn't a very satisfying answer because it doesn't really answer the question. Any description is going to be something to do with brains.

What is it about complex advanced nervous systems that entails subjective experiences?

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm an atheist, and I'm not going to argue for any supernatural force. I agree with what you're saying here. I still think there is a gap, in principle, in our understanding of matter creating experiences.

The phrase "complex advanced nervous system as in humans and the octopus" isn't a very satisfying answer because it doesn't really answer the question. Any description is going to be something to do with brains.

What is it about complex advanced nervous systems that entails subjective experiences?

I believe your question has been answered by the scientific evidence. First, yes the bold above is true all known behavior whether you describe it as objective or subjective is actually objective, because it is observed behavior that results from neurological activity. -Even what you may call dreaming, love, anger or whatever have been linked by direct observation of neurological activity in the brain and even chemical reactions and the release of chemicals associated with what emotions some may call subjective.

I have repeatedly asked when all observed behavior can be traced to the rain electrical activity, not necessarily fully explained, what other possible hypothesis or explanation does any one have offer other than (gaps?) 'arguing from ignorance' of unanswered questions?

Yes, any description is going to be something to do with brains, because there is no other known possible source for anything related to consciousness.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

No. You are still missing the point.

Our world and our science are still based on their errors.

They made fundamental errors which they would recant if they could. But we still hold most of their beliefs, definitions, and axioms as gospel despite two centuries of experiment that shows they were wrong.

You have failled to document these errors based on scientific references.

Again . . .This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.

 

[Yerda]

I believe your question has been answered by the scientific evidence.

Ok. Do you have a particular piece of evidence in mind?

First, yes the bold above is true all known behavior whether you describe it as objective or subjective is actually objective, because it is observed behavior that results from neurological activity. -Even what you may call dreaming, love, anger or whatever have been linked by direct observation of neurological activity in the brain and even chemical reactions and the release of chemicals associated with what emotions some may call subjective.

We agree that neurological activity causes or creates the experiences we have. It follows from it. But why? What is it about neurological activity?

I have repeatedly asked when all observed behavior can be traced to the rain electrical activity, not necessarily fully explained, what other possible hypothesis or explanation does any one have offer other than (gaps?) 'arguing from ignorance' of unanswered questions?


Yes, any description is going to be something to do with brains, because there is no other known possible source for anything related to consciousness.

Still waiting . . .

So we agree that brains are involved.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok. Do you have a particular piece of evidence in mind?

The best evidence is the difference in consciousness and intelligence as nervous systems become more complex with the attributes of consciousness and intelligence evolves. Differences con be dramatic such as those animals that have secondary consciousness, languages and greater intelligence and those that do not, or they may be subtle as between homosapians and our nacestors Neanderthals and others. Our tribal self-awareness and intelligence was greater in more diverse and cooperative hunting, forming larger tribal units.

We agree that neurological activity causes or creates the experiences we have. It follows from it. But why? What is it about neurological activity?

You are unfortunately asking an open ended philosophical question 'why? for a scientific outcome of cause and effect relationships in the neurological function of the human and other higher animals nervous system. The best answer is as with the progressive evolution of the nervous system including the brain there is survival value in the neurological attributes of consciousness and intelligence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

There have been a number of threads and posts that challenge the scientific basis for a natural evolved basis for an evolved natural consciousness.

The following are basic definitions of consciousness:

The Cambridge Dictionary defines consciousness as "the state of understanding and realizing something." The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something."

I will argue the following:

1. Degrees of consciousness exist through out the evolutionary history of animals with a nervous system and a brain with neurological responses to the awareness of the environment, Consciousness increases with complexity over time.
2. Consciousness represents the collective thoughts, reasoning, understand and realizing relationships and responses to the environment, which have been falsified by scientific methods that originate from the brain and nervous system.
3. Science has reasonable explanation of the nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.

Research is constantly expand our scientific understanding of consciousness in the animal kingdoms. The following article is representative of the current advances of science:

Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Cognitive Flexibility - Neuroscience News

A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

neurosciencenews.com

Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Cognitive Flexibility

Summary: A new study provides insights into the evolutionary origins of cognitive flexibility, an essential skill for adaptation and survival.

Participants were studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while learning a sensorimotor task, the findings of which showed the importance of sensory brain regions in decision-making. The researchers also discovered surprising similarities between the brain activity of humans and mice during this task.

These results suggest that the interplay between the frontal brain and sensory brain regions for decision-making formed early in evolutionary development.

Key Facts:

1. Cognitive flexibility, which allows quick adaptation to changing conditions, is crucial for survival and is based on the functions of the orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.
2. Sensory brain regions are critical in decision-making processes as discovered in the study, suggesting the need for further investigation in this area.
3. The similarity in cognitive processes between mice and humans suggests that these decision-making mechanisms likely developed early in evolutionary history.

Source: RUB

Get up. Go to the kitchen. Prepare some cereal – but a look into the fridge shows: the milk bottle is empty. What now? Skip breakfast? Ask the neighbour for milk? Eat jam sandwiches? Every day, people are confronted with situations that were actually planned quite differently. Flexibility is what helps.

The origin of this skill in the brain is called cognitive flexibility.

A neuroscientific research team at the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, University Hospital of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, and the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University has now succeeded in getting a little closer to the evolutionary origin of cognitive flexibility.

The researchers published their findings in the journal Nature Communications, online since 9. June 2023.

Key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases

Cognitive flexibility is essential for the survival of all species on Earth. It is particularly based on functions of the so-called orbitofrontal cortex located in the frontal brain.

“The loss of cognitive flexibility in everyday life is a key factor in many neuropsychiatric diseases,” Professor Burkhard Pleger and first author Dr. Bin Wang from the Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil describe their motivation for the study.

“Understanding the underlying network mechanisms is therefore essential for the development of new therapeutic methods.”

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the Bochum team and their cooperation partner Dr. Abhishek Banerjee from the Biosciences Institute at Newcastle University examined the brain functions of 40 participants while they were learning a sensorimotor task.

While lying in the MRI, the volunteers had to learn to recognise the meaning of different touch signals – similar to those used in Braille – on the tip of the right index finger. One touch signal told the participants to press a button with their free hand, while another signal instructed them not to do so and to remain still.

The connection between the two different touch signals and pressing the button or not pressing the button had to be learned from trial to trial. The challenge: after a certain time, the touch signals changed their meaning.

What had previously meant “pressing the button” now meant “holding still” – an ideal experimental set-up to investigate the volunteers’ cognitive flexibility. The fMRI provided images of the corresponding brain activity.

Similarities between humans and mice

“Similar studies had already been done with mice in the past,” says Pleger.

“The learning task we chose now allowed us to observe the brains of mice and humans under comparable cognitive demands.”

A surprising finding is the comparability between the Bochum results in humans and the previously published data from mice, Wang points out.

The similarity shows that cognitive functions that are important for survival, such as the flexibility to adapt quickly to suddenly changing conditions, are following comparable rules in different species.

In addition, the Bochum scientists were able to determine a close involvement of sensory brain regions in the processing of the decisions made during tactile learning. Wang emphasises: “Besides the frontal brain, sensory regions are essential for decision-making in the brain.”

More to follow . . .

Self awareness is pretty incredible if you think about it. I know it is me inside this body sensing the world from MY perspective and interacting with people who are doing the same thing from their bodies.

 

[cladking]

You have failled to document these errors based on scientific references.

Again . . .This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.

I have listed these errors numerous times. You choose to ignore them and say I have no proof without ever offering proof, evidence, or even an argument that their assumptions were correct. I offer evidence you offer repetition of the same erroneous arguments.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have listed these errors numerous times. You choose to ignore them and say I have no proof without ever offering proof, evidence, or even an argument that their assumptions were correct. I offer evidence you offer repetition of the same erroneous arguments.

They are not real errors. You have listed 'some things?' based on an ancient religious agenda without science. You actually have not expressed any knowledge of science the whole time you have posted.

Again . . .This confirms your rejection of science for an ancient religious agenda, which eliminates any possibility of a coherent argument on your part.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is an extreme philosophical view really not justified considering the research and discoveries. You keep repeating this as if it has nay meaning as far as science goes, and not meaningful. Science gets much of it's knowledge from the 'outside' and it still stands.

The problem like other unfounded philosophical critics is they are little more than 'back seat drivers' and not offering anything of substance. Also as mentioned before you need to offer an alternative hypothesis, which none is forthcoming.

Yours, I think, is the extreme philosophical position. You seem to be of the opinion that the mind is the brain, and that all science has to do in order to fully account for consciousness, is to examine physical processes in the brain, and map the correlates with aspects of cognition. As far as I am aware, this is a fringe perspective, and not what mainstream neuroscience asserts or predicts. So far, anyway.

I have noticed btw, your tendency to recite the word “science” as though it were a mantra. Doing so over the corpse of reductionism, will not put the universe, reduced to it’s material components, back together again, nor make it make sense. You need more than the invocation of your sacred word for that.

 

[gnostic]

Efforts to define consciousness as if one were examining it in a lab, viewed from the outside, are necessarily inadequate and doomed to failure. There is no Archimedean point, no God’s eye view, from which man may observe the phenomenon of consciousness. We are within the world looking out, and failure to acknowledge this can only lead our understanding into blind alleys. Only by raising the level of our own consciousness, rather than reducing it entirely to physical processes, can we hope to further out understanding of our place in the universe, and our relationship with the forces that guide and direct all things.

This - what I had highlighted in bold - sounds something more wishy-washy that I come to expect from one of those woo-woo philosophies or religions.

The “woo-woo” I was referring to, are those who believe that consciousness are more mythological, supernatural or paranormal or of the occult. Such consciousness doesn’t exist in reality, except in the imagination of the creative mind, or at worse, in delusions.

with sciences, at least, you can weed out the crazy woo-woo.

But there are (at least) two main aspects to science, in regards to consciousness:

1. The “physical processes” that you had referred to, is biology and biology-related field, eg neuroscience. Biology falls under the Natural Sciences.
2. The 2nd aspect is the psychological field, but this only focused on human consciousness with regards to human psyche or emotion (behaviour), which falls under the umbrella of “Social Sciences”.

Psychology, like most sciences in Social Sciences (eg sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc) are often referred to as “soft science”, because it doesn’t require to follow the standard of Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is required for physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and biology, for any hypothesis to be considered as science or “scientific theory”.

Now, you can be dismissive of the physical processes of consciousness, but you are ignoring the facts that humans are not the only living organisms. Plus, there are observable & testable evidence for organisms with consciousness that don't exist with philosophical or religious assumptions/claims.

And I agreed with @shunyadragon that animals do require complex central nervous system (eg brain, spinal cord), to have consciousness. Only vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals) and some invertebrates, such as arthropods (eg spiders, insects, marine arthropods) and cephalopods (eg octopuses, squids, etc).

But the rest of invertebrates, may have some nerves, but no brain, but instead of nerve tissues these animals have nerve net, eg corals, sea anemones, jelly fishes, hydra, etc.

Then there are some invertebrates that have no nerve whatsoever, eg sponges.

whether these invertebrates without brains, have consciousness, would seem highly doubtful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With more coming from you, I look forward to your posts which are always informative. However, I take consciousness to be completely personal.

2. Consciousness represents the collective thoughts, reasoning, understand and realizing relationships and responses to the environment, which have been falsified by scientific methods that originate from the brain and nervous system.
More to follow . . .

I differ with this proposition also. What we think should be based on scientific findings.
"You cannot just 'think about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation."

“Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.”
- David Chalmers, ‘The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory’

David Chalmers was a philosopher and not a neuroscientists. The way philosophers and scientist think is different.

That does not negate an underlying subjective cause for consciousness and a 'Source' Some call God(s).

Ah! Here comes the rub. That is not scientific.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This - what I had highlighted in bold - sounds something more wishy-washy that I come to expect from one of those woo-woo philosophies or religions.

The “woo-woo” I was referring to, are those who believe that consciousness are more mythological, supernatural or paranormal or of the occult. Such consciousness doesn’t exist in reality, except in the imagination of the creative mind, or at worse, in delusions.

with sciences, at least, you can weed out the crazy woo-woo.

But there are (at least) two main aspects to science, in regards to consciousness:

1. The “physical processes” that you had referred to, is biology and biology-related field, eg neuroscience. Biology falls under the Natural Sciences.
2. The 2nd aspect is the psychological field, but this only focused on human consciousness with regards to human psyche or emotion (behaviour), which falls under the umbrella of “Social Sciences”.

Psychology, like most sciences in Social Sciences (eg sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc) are often referred to as “soft science”, because it doesn’t require to follow the standard of Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is required for physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy and biology, for any hypothesis to be considered as science or “scientific theory”.

Now, you can be dismissive of the physical processes of consciousness, but you are ignoring the facts that humans are not the only living organisms. Plus, there are observable & testable evidence for organisms with consciousness that don't exist with philosophical or religious assumptions/claims.

And I agreed with @shunyadragon that do require complex central nervous system (eg brain, spinal cord), to have consciousness. Only vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds & mammals) and some invertebrates, such as arthropods (eg spiders, insects, marine arthropods) and cephalopods (eg octopuses, squids, etc).

But the rest of invertebrates, may have some nerves, but no brain, but instead of nerve tissues these animals have nerve net, eg corals, sea anemones, jelly fishes, hydra, etc.

Then there are some invertebrates that have no nerve whatsoever, eg sponges.

whether these invertebrates without brains, have consciousness, would seem highly doubtful.

When arguing that science doesn't have an answer to consciousness, philosophers of mind are generally referring to the natural sciences. So the vision of science apprehending consciousness in a pincer movement, with physics, chemistry and biology on one flank, and psychology (with it's attendant Woo first weeded out) on the other, doesn't really hold water.

This is not to say that understanding psychology has no part to play in understanding consciousness. But it doesn't appear designed in any way, to address the question of why conscious beings have qualitative, phenomenal experiences, or why it is that electro-chemical activity in the brain gives rise to experience and awareness. In other words, why it is that there is something it is like, to be conscious?

 

[shunyadragon]

With more coming from you, I look forward to your posts which are always informative. However, I take consciousness to be completely personal.

Here we disagree. We may feel consciousness and intelligence is personal,but that is an egocentric view of what are natural evolved attributes of complex evolved nervous systems.

I differ with this proposition also. What we think should be based on scientific findings.
"You cannot just 'think about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation."

David Chalmers was a philosopher and not a neuroscientists. The way philosophers and scientist think is different.

Even though scientists and philosophies approach consciousness and intelligence differently they should work more in harmony where philosophers work more closely with the scientific knowledge of consciousness and intelligence.

My statement stands: "You cannot just 'think about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation."

Note the bold, philosophy needs to consider the science more closely, and not just think differently

Ah! Here comes the rub. That is not scientific.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

 

[shunyadragon]

When arguing that science doesn't have an answer to consciousness, philosophers of mind are generally referring to the natural sciences. So the vision of science apprehending consciousness in a pincer movement, with physics, chemistry and biology on one flank, and psychology (with it's attendant Woo first weeded out) on the other, doesn't really hold water.

This is not to say that understanding psychology has no part to play in understanding consciousness. But it doesn't appear designed in any way, to address the question of why conscious beings have qualitative, phenomenal experiences, or why it is that electro-chemical activity in the brain gives rise to experience and awareness. In other words, why it is that there is something it is like, to be conscious?

I tend negate psychology as one of the pensers in understanding consciousness. Psychology of the past was indeed considerable subjective thinking philosophical woo. I believe over time psychology is using more hard science to understand consciousness, intelligence, and of course human behavior and mental illness. Much of the hard research involves understanding mental illness, influence of drugs and conditions such as the physical relationship of brain injury as in PTSD, and the nature of consciousness, behavior and intelligence in the physical and chemical function of the the brain.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My statement stands: "You cannot just 'think about' consciousness and come up with a competent consistent explanation."

Yeah, Shunyadragon, we cannot just think about 'consciousness' and get its secrets. Philosophers and mystics tend to do that.
We need to take the latest findings of science in consideration and keep away from superstitions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In other words, why it is that there is something it is like, to be conscious?

You save a file on the computer, it remains there (unless there is a malfunction).
There may be 1,000,000 files on your computer, and you need to find a particular one. It takes time. Sometimes you get it quick, sometimes you cannot trace it. Our memories, experiences also are filed in brain, part kept here, part kept there. Brain does a defragmentation during sleep, but seven hours of sleep does not defragment all the information in 80 billion neurons in our brain.