What if Consciousness is Not Important?

[Nakosis]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

 

[exchemist]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

I may be missing the point but this does sound like ballocks.

When I do an algebraic calculation, are these people really telling me that this is done without my consciously directing my thoughts towards the equation on the piece of paper in front of me?

Or when I sing from a musical score, am I not consciously directing my thoughts towards the note values and pitches laid out in front of me and directing my voice accordingly?

What am I missing?

 

[Nakosis]

I may be missing the point but this does sound like ballocks.

When I do an algebraic calculation, are these people really telling me that this is done without my consciously directing my thoughts towards the equation on the piece of paper in front of me?

Or when I sing from a musical score, am I not consciously directing my thoughts towards the note values and pitches laid out in front of me and directing my voice accordingly?

What am I missing?

I think there are times self-consciousness is just a passenger. I also think there are times the narrating self-conscious provides feedback.

Like when you know an equation well or a song well the subconscious process needs no feed-back.

When I'm learning something new I feel I'm driving the process, but from where did the desire to learn something new come from? Perhaps the learning is via a subconscious process and consciously choosing the correct value or correct note as a conscious process is just part of the narrative.

I guess the question would be could a human act/react exactly the same if they weren't self-aware?

Whether AI, without the feelings and self-awareness, could they do everything humans can do?

 

[exchemist]

I think there are times self-consciousness is just a passenger. I also think there are times the narrating self-conscious provides feedback.

Like when to know an equation well or a song well the subconscious process needs no feed-back.

When I'm learning something new I feel I'm driving the process, but from where did the desire to learn something new come from? Perhaps the learning is via a subconscious process and consciously choosing the correct value or correct note as a conscious process is just part of the narrative.

I guess the question would be could a human act/react exactly the same if they weren't self-aware?

Whether AI, without the feelings and self-awareness, could they do everything humans can do?

I know nothing about this field but it feels as if there is a hierarchy, with consciously willed actions at the top and increasingly autonomous responses in levels below. In sport, or singing, one uses repetitive willed actions to train the autonomous level beneath, thus freeing the top level for the next new task. So I make myself learn, say, a Handelian run by rote, so that it becomes a reflex I that can trigger and then it looks after itself, while I scan ahead for what comes next in the music.

But I have the feeling this is not really what they are talking about. I have the nagging feeling I have missed the point in some way.

As for AI I'm not sure it is relevant to invoke human methods of problem-solving.

 

[Heyo]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

This aligns well with the Libet experiments about "free will" and consciousness. Our consciousness/ego thinks it's in control when in fact it is just recording and rationalizing our unconscious thoughts and actions.

 

[exchemist]

This aligns well with the Libet experiments about "free will" and consciousness. Our consciousness/ego thinks it's in control when in fact it is just recording and rationalizing our unconscious thoughts and actions.

Interesting, but do you know how that would apply in the examples I gave in post 2?

 

[Heyo]

Interesting, but do you know how that would apply in the examples I gave in post 2?

We would have to study that in much more detail. But the experiments of Libet and others show that many decisions we make are made long (sometimes seconds) before they come to our consciousness. We attribute them to our consciousness non-the-less. So we know that our consciousness/ego is rationalizing.
The studies don't (and can't) show that non of our decisions are conscious but many aren't and many more than we would readily accept.

 

[exchemist]

We would have to study that in much more detail. But the experiments of Libet and others show that many decisions we make are made long (sometimes seconds) before they come to our consciousness. We attribute them to our consciousness non-the-less. So we know that our consciousness/ego is rationalizing.
The studies don't (and can't) show that non of our decisions are conscious but many are and many more than we would readily accept.

Ah, that makes sense. So there is a strong element of intuition, which to which we retrofit a conscious rationale? Is that it?

 

[Heyo]

Ah, that makes sense. So there is a strong element of intuition, which to which we retrofit a conscious rationale? Is that ist

Yep. You didn't consciously decide to have marmalade on your toast instead of cheese. That was decided by unconscious processes long before you thought about it. But you still think you made the decision.

 

[exchemist]

Yep. You didn't consciously decide to have marmalade on your toast instead of cheese. That was decided by unconscious processes long before you thought about it. But you still think you made the decision.

Ah yes. But that would apply to decisions, rather than to ongoing processes like the examples in post 2.

It feels right that many moments of decision are intuitive and then backed up by rationalisation after the event. But that intuitive moment may draw on conscious thoughts about the issue beforehand.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

Dear Nakosis

I think you are right in that Man’s consciousness - and idea of [a] self - is only an effect of his physical being (experiencing through 5 senses, processing through a brain, etc).

But I think you are wrong in that it does not have an impact on agency. In fact, the impact that consciousness and self-consciousness has on agency is what makes Man not a machine and is closely related to the human sense of free-will and Ego.

Using the word “purpose” in regards to consciousness however, is a matter of belief. It definitely has a function, but function can be accidental and evolutionarily sustained - purpose, on the other hand, is designed.

I personally read your thread to be about whether or not consciousness is irrelevant though. In that case, I’d have to say no, it absolutely is not irrelevant.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Yerda]

Yep. You didn't consciously decide to have marmalade on your toast instead of cheese. That was decided by unconscious processes long before you thought about it. But you still think you made the decision.

Are unconscious processes not me?

I'm not so sure that the conscious part of decision making should be ignored either. If I consciously simulate the expected experience for each possibility then settle on the possible experience that I would prefer then it seems to me that I made the decision. As far as I can see nothing in the sciences contradicts that and it's jumping the gun at present to say that the decision was made independent of my conscious thoughts.

 

[Heyo]

Are unconscious processes not me?

I'm not so sure that the conscious part of decision making should be ignored either. If I consciously simulate the expected experience for each possibility then settle on the possible experience that I would prefer then it seems to me that I made the decision. As far as I can see nothing in the sciences contradicts that and it's jumping the gun at present to say that the decision was made independent of my conscious thoughts.

Read my previous post (#7). We don't expect all decisions to be unconscious, just some or most. And we can't rely on introspection as our consciousness is so good at rationalizing. More studies are needed to discern between conscious and unconscious decisions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

This very much aligns with my own personal worldview. Consciousness is the passenger, the witness, the passive observer, Sākṣī. Thoughts, beliefs, sensations, perceptions, intentions, memories and emotions are part of one of three bodies I call the subtle body. These, in my view, are not consciousness.

As far as what purpose consciousness serves, it serves as existence. Pure being. I think being is important, no?

 

[Nakosis]

This very much aligns with my own personal worldview. Consciousness is the passenger, the witness, the passive observer, Sākṣī. Thoughts, beliefs, sensations, perceptions, intentions, memories and emotions are part of one of three bodies I call the subtle body. These, in my view, are not consciousness.

As far as what purpose consciousness serves, it serves as existence. Pure being. I think being is important, no?

It is important too, to me.

Just wondering if there is any benefit beyond personal gratification.

 

[capumetu]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

Without it, you simply do not exist

 

[Nakosis]

Without it, you simply do not exist

Right, which is the goal of Zen or Buddhism in no-self or no mind.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

We suggest that our personal awareness does not create, cause or choose our beliefs, feelings or perceptions. Instead, the contents of consciousness are generated “behind the scenes” by fast, efficient, non-conscious systems in our brains. All this happens without any interference from our personal awareness, which sits passively in the passenger seat while these processes occur...

...If the experience of consciousness does not confer any particular advantage, it’s not clear what its purpose is. But as a passive accompaniment to non-conscious processes, we don’t think that the phenomenon of personal awareness has a purpose, in much the same way that rainbows do not. Rainbows simply result from the reflection, refraction and dispersion of sunlight through water droplets – none of which serves any particular purpose.

What if consciousness is not what drives the human mind?

The problem I find is that we wouldn't know unless we were aware of the activity behind the scenes. So in the end, we're right back to consciousness.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

This aligns well with the Libet experiments about "free will" and consciousness. Our consciousness/ego thinks it's in control when in fact it is just recording and rationalizing our unconscious thoughts and actions.

Not all choices are equal.

In terms of Libet's experiments, I believe there are different types of choices. If we're talking about simple choices involving choosing between two options, especially if you make them repetitive, then i think those choices can be made without much thought. Your body may go into something like an auto-pilot mode, even. That might be the type of choices that many experiments capture.

But if you have to make a choice that requires a lot of thought, then these choices would probably be less predictive. So perhaps one component of free-will, if it exists, would be a choice where we are fully involved in it.

 

[capumetu]

Right, which is the goal of Zen or Buddhism in no-self or no mind.

I know little of that faith but are you sure that is correct, as that makes no sense to me. Who would prefer nonexistence to existence?