What is Consciousness?

[Ben Dhyan]

My opinon is there always has been and always will be interaction of some sort. It didn't start anywhere, it always has been. Without interaction in some manner there would be nothing. I would say the first interactions resembling consciousness occured in some of the earliest primitive creatures on Earth as a self defence mechanism.

I agree that interactions at the quantum level are eternal...bur why would consciousness only arise on this planet and not also be present throughout the cosmos at all times?

And what is it that consciousness of creatures needs to defend itself against?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe our understanding of the universe is quite limited.

True....but some understanding about the source of consciousness is nearer to the mark than others...

This video has been posted on other threads but f you have missed it..here..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It seems physical means it can be measured.

If that were true, things like depression, anxiety, political orientation, etc., are all physical, while the state of any quantum system is not.

It interacts with something else and that interaction can be measured.

The problem with this is that given some set of interactions that produce a given phenomenon, we can easily claim to be measuring what is merely and only a construct. Consider psychiatric disorders: there is no way to test for even the existence of any disorder in the DSM/ICD except through the use of their definitions (which is also the method we use to state they exist). Imagine that I develop a reliable instrument for Annoying Personality Disorder (APD), which we'll call the APD-scale. I can define the symptoms as follows:
1) Writing posts that are often longer than one page
2) Using twitter
3) Enjoying reading, using, and discussing advanced data/statistical analysis.
4) Repeatedly posting on RF due to insominia
5) Thinking Alien vs. Predator was a fun movie while Freddy vs. Jason was god-awful.

I now have an instrument with greater test-retest and inter-rater reliability than most for diagnoses in the DSM or ICD. I can "measure" who does or doesn't have APD, and what I am measuring is the result of many interactions. But as I made APD up for this post, am I measuring anything? I would say no. Unfortunately, it isn't just psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and more that present difficulties here. We know, for example, that space-like separated measurements of two physical systems can be causally linked regardless of distance and instantaneously (violating classical causality). We have no idea what we are "measuring" when we measure such links. Heck, we don't know what relation is between quantum systems or particles and physical reality. Hence the multitude of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics (nobody had to "interpret" Newtonian mechanics or classical physics).

If it is measurable, it's physical.

Measurement is fundamentally concerned with the application of statistical theories of measurement error, or quantifying the error of instruments. In other words, we only ever measure errors. This makes it a little hard to associate that which is physical with that which we measure.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I agree that interactions at the quantum level are eternal...bur why would consciousness only arise on this planet and not also be present throughout the cosmos at all times?

And what is it that consciousness of creatures needs to defend itself against?

I see no reason why such complex interactions leading to consciousness couldn't evolve on other planets similar to our Earth.

Consciousness or awareness is a survival mechanism. The more aware creatures became as they evolved, the better equipped they were to defend themselves against predators and competing species thereby increasing their chances for survival.

 

[Runewolf1973]

True....but some understanding about the source of consciousness is nearer to the mark than others...

This video has been posted on other threads but f you have missed it..here..

Well that's another opinion I suppose...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Consciousness or awareness is a survival mechanism.

Then why have the most "successful" species (those that have lasted longer than any and basically unchanged) without consciousness, and why has virtually every species that ever existed or that still exists lacked/lacks consciousness?

The more aware creatures became as they evolved, the better equipped they were to defend themselves against predators and competing species thereby increasing their chances for survival.

Consciousness requires brains, which require dangerously large heads, slow development, longer periods of dependency, shorter general reactivity to threats, lesser abilities to coordinate in groups/flocks/hives/colonies, vastly more complex neurophysiological systems that can suffer from vastly more numerous fatal problems, and have proved less fit than the incredibly (comparative) physiology of extremophiles.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I see no reason why such complex interactions leading to consciousness couldn't evolve on other planets similar to our Earth.

Consciousness or awareness is a survival mechanism. The more aware creatures became as they evolved, the better equipped they were to defend themselves against predators and competing species thereby increasing their chances for survival.

Your argument is circular...it's one thing to say that consciousness arises due to the need to survive...but the need to survive only arises after self consciousness arises? . And this brings us to the question of where you draw the delineating line between the nature of non-conscious interactions, conscious interactions, and finally self consciousness interactions...quantum level...atomic...molecular...cellular...etc?

 

[Nakosis]

If that were true, things like depression, anxiety, political orientation, etc., are all physical, while the state of any quantum system is not.

I'm not really a scientist, and I don't play one on TV, but, how would we know anything about the quantum system if we can't somehow observe its interaction with other systems? We should be able to measure that interaction somehow.

The problem with this is that given some set of interactions that produce a given phenomenon, we can easily claim to be measuring what is merely and only a construct. Consider psychiatric disorders: there is no way to test for even the existence of any disorder in the DSM/ICD except through the use of their definitions (which is also the method we use to state they exist). Imagine that I develop a reliable instrument for Annoying Personality Disorder (APD), which we'll call the APD-scale. I can define the symptoms as follows:
1) Writing posts that are often longer than one page
2) Using twitter
3) Enjoying reading, using, and discussing advanced data/statistical analysis.
4) Repeatedly posting on RF due to insominia
5) Thinking Alien vs. Predator was a fun movie while Freddy vs. Jason was god-awful.

Ok, but you are quantifying interaction. You are identifying properties that are measurable. I understand this is a construct but isn't this basically what we do with everything we consider physical? Atoms and molecules are human constructs use to explain phenomenon we observe. I learned one construct of atoms when I was in grammar school and I learn a different construct later on. The fact we can construct, constructs is because we can consistently observe this interaction.

I now have an instrument with greater test-retest and inter-rater reliability than most for diagnoses in the DSM or ICD. I can "measure" who does or doesn't have APD, and what I am measuring is the result of many interactions. But as I made APD up for this post, am I measuring anything? I would say no. Unfortunately, it isn't just psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and more that present difficulties here.

How is this different from anything else. You created an construct through observation and set about determining whether you could consistently measure it.

We know, for example, that space-like separated measurements of two physical systems can be causally linked regardless of distance and instantaneously (violating classical causality). We have no idea what we are "measuring" when we measure such links. Heck, we don't know what relation is between quantum systems or particles and physical reality. Hence the multitude of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics (nobody had to "interpret" Newtonian mechanics or classical physics).

Sure, we don't necessarily know the "essence" (if that is the right word) of what we are measuring. I see this as being true of everything. Everything gets reduced to a force of some kind. We can measure the interaction of these forces. Doesn't mean we know the essence of that force. Folks create their own constructs based on observations. If we find that construct provides consistent predictability and even control of the force/phenomenon we assume the construct is sufficiently accurate to continue to be usable.

Measurement is fundamentally concerned with the application of statistical theories of measurement error, or quantifying the error of instruments. In other words, we only ever measure errors. This makes it a little hard to associate that which is physical with that which we measure.

We kind of accept an allowable margin for error. Like we can't exactly determine the speed of light but the construct we have is sufficient to allow relatively accurate prediction. We can't exactly determine the position of an electron etc. However a materialist accepts these things as something physical.

Even conscious can be measured, I was looking at a study where they were using a magnetic field to cause a response in brain activity. This is an interaction of systems which can be measured. Unconscious folks measure differently than conscious folks. They can determine whether a person in a comma is in a conscious or unconscious state. So consciousness has a property which can be measured. It's physical. Ok, materialist can accept that consciousness exists. Doesn't mean really we have identified the essence of consciousness.

This is different than saying something is supernatural. This is basically telling someone something exists which can never be measured. So it never any interaction of any kind that can be observed.

Maybe something like this exists but so what? It will never affect anything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Then why have the most "successful" species (those that have lasted longer than any and basically unchanged) without consciousness, and why has virtually every species that ever existed or that still exists lacked/lacks consciousness?


Consciousness requires brains, which require dangerously large heads, slow development, longer periods of dependency, shorter general reactivity to threats, lesser abilities to coordinate in groups/flocks/hives/colonies, vastly more complex neurophysiological systems that can suffer from vastly more numerous fatal problems, and have proved less fit than the incredibly (comparative) physiology of extremophiles.

I don't believe awareness or consciousness is special to human brains. Every well adapted species carries with it its own unique form of awareness that has allowed it to survive. A shark has highly developed senses that allow it to be an excellent predator for example. Not all brains evolved the same as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't all have their own peculiar form of awareness. To think that human brains are the only ones to have developed some form of awareness or consciousness is nothing more than human arrogance.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe awareness or consciousness is special to human brains. Every well adapted species carries with it its own unique form of awareness that has allowed it to survive. A shark has highly developed senses that allow it to be an excellent predator for example. Not all brains evolved the same as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't all have their own peculiar form of awareness. To think that human brains are the only ones to have developed some form of awareness or consciousness is nothing more than human arrogance.

Your factually correct.

Whales and dolphins have complex language. That requires consciousness.

There are many different levels of consciousness all matching different levels of brain advancements.

If animals cannot think they cannot imagine that a predator might be in certain places in wait.


Part of this evolutionary path is still in us, as we are able to imagine faces in abstract patters. It stems from are ability to find/search for predators hiding in brush/jungle. Falling dreams are also patterns from our primate heritage in trees, so that they could grab a hold of a limb before falling.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your argument is circular...it's one thing to say that consciousness arises due to the need to survive...but the need to survive only arises after self consciousness arises? . And this brings us to the question of where you draw the delineating line between the nature of non-conscious interactions, conscious interactions, and finally self consciousness interactions...quantum level...atomic...molecular...cellular...etc?

They arose along the same lines.

 

[jeager106]

Your factually correct.

Whales and dolphins have complex language. That requires consciousness.

There are many different levels of consciousness all matching different levels of brain advancements.

If animals cannot think they cannot imagine that a predator might be in certain places in wait.


Part of this evolutionary path is still in us, as we are able to imagine faces in abstract patters. It stems from are ability to find/search for predators hiding in brush/jungle. Falling dreams are also patterns from our primate heritage in trees, so that they could grab a hold of a limb before falling.

There are animals that seem to exhibit a degree of intelligence.
Whales, dolphins, some dogs are quite "smart" even some humans.

But is a whale aware it's a whale? A dog aware it's a dog?
And so on.
SELF awareness is what seems to be missing from this dialog.
I'm aware that I'm a 68 year old male and am aware of my "self" that which makes me an entity set apart from all others.
Personality comes to mind here.

 

[George-ananda]

True....but some understanding about the source of consciousness is nearer to the mark than others...

This video has been posted on other threads but f you have missed it..here..

I watched this full video and was very impressed by this guy's knowledge and ability to bring it down to a lay audience. However, those with a materialist bent will not try to listen but to resist. Most experts just preach to their choir. Personal paradigm shifts happen but they are rare. An interesting question maybe for another thread is this question of moments of personal paradigm shifting and resistance to paradigm shifting.

 

[outhouse]

But is a whale aware it's a whale? A dog aware it's a dog?

If it has language, there is no reason to think it does not.

Example. Elephants have figured out they are looking at themselves in a mirror. Prove self awareness? not really but it does show limited examples. These are recent studies that have taken what is known about animal self awareness to new levels.

SELF awareness is what seems to be missing from this dialog.

Were talking about limited forms not advanced systems as far as ours, but yes to think is to survive. Self awareness is only a small part of consciousness, thinking/thought is the majority of consciousness.

 

[outhouse]

SELF awareness is what seems to be missing from this dialog.

I owned a parrot for almost 20 years. They are self aware, highly social creatures. Also the smartest of all animals in nature.

Typical of a 3 year olds intellect.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There are animals that seem to exhibit a degree of intelligence.
Whales, dolphins, some dogs are quite "smart" even some humans.

But is a whale aware it's a whale? A dog aware it's a dog?
And so on.
SELF awareness is what seems to be missing from this dialog.
I'm aware that I'm a 68 year old male and am aware of my "self" that which makes me an entity set apart from all others.
Personality comes to mind here.

That is because self-awareness is an even more highly evolved form of awareness.

 

[outhouse]

http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html

Elephant Self-Awareness Mirrors Humans

 

[jeager106]

http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html

Elephant Self-Awareness Mirrors Humans

http://www.livescience.com/4272-elephant-awareness-mirrors-humans.html
Ewwwwwwww. Bad pun my friend.

(elephant awareness mirrors humans)

 

[Runewolf1973]

 

[George-ananda]

OMG...this is absolutely amazing...I didn't know elephants can do that!!! GREAT,,,thanks