What is consciousness?

[godnotgod]

Isn't the question circular in nature? This more of an unhealthy symptom than a valid question.

The problem with it is that it sets up a subject/object split, but that runs up against the fact that the questioner is consciousness itself. So it would be much more fruitful to ask: 'who is it that is asking the question?'. Then we might get somewhere.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think there first needs to be a definition of consciousness and awareness.

 

[psychoslice]

I would say that it is awareness of self and one's surroundings. We are partially conscious when we dream. That is, we have a sense of self and an imaginary sense of being situated. However, our bodies are normally paralyzed in that state, and we don't have full awareness of our situation.

Does an animal that cannot recognize itself in a mirror lack awareness of self? I suspect not, but it does not have the ability to conclude that the image it is looking at is not a different animal from itself. Realizing that is a higher level of awareness, but lacking it is not an absence of consciousness. Indeed, by treating the reflected image as a different animal, it must have an awareness of self. A bird that flies into a window because it wants to scare off a perceived intruder on its territory is making a fairly complex calculation about its environment. It is just a mistaken calculation.

Brains build models of reality and imaginary causal models of how its surroundings will change or behave. Human brains are just extremely good at building very complex models, and testing experiences against those models--a perception of change--is part of consciousness.

Yes, but I was also including what is called Super-Consciousness, that which all arises from.

 

[Sonofason]

An interesting overview of philosophical and scientific thinking on this question.

Some notes on what is covered:

- Being conscious is the only way we know we exist;
- It is generally agreed that consciousness arises in the brain;
- The brain uses 20% of the energy use but is only 2% of our mass;
- Scientists are trying to establish which parts of the brain are essential for consciousness;
- The binding problem - how does the brain integrate sensory and internal information?
- How and why did consciousness evolve?
- The Theory of Mind - is empathy an indicator of consciousness? How about self-recognition?
- The hard problem of consciousness - why do we have subjective experience at all? Is consciousness really a cognitive illusion, a user-friendly image of our world?

I personally believe that consciousness can be viewed and understood as existing on a graded scale as with the shades of gray moving from black to white, where complete blackness might be associated with a total and complete lack of consciousness, and complete whiteness as being a state of pure consciousness. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, consciousness is simply defined as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself". I personally see no need for the modifying clause "especially of something within oneself", because the use of the word "especially" in this definition implies that having an awareness of something within oneself is not absolutely necessarily to have consciousness. Thus, I believe we can stop at "the quality or state of being aware", or having a sense of awareness. I personally believe that everything that could be said to be an actual tangible existing thing embodies at least some degree of consciousness. Can we honestly say that a hydrogen atom is completely oblivious that it has become attached to an oxygen molecule? We honestly don't know the answer to that question. We might surmise, perhaps as a result of arrogance and pride that they do not, but the truth is, we just don't know. I believe that everything is to some degree aware of its current state.

Consider human beings. What are we? We are a conglomerate of individual atomic particles that are held together by their mutual attractions towards one another resulting from their own individual and personal affinity for completeness.

What is a family? A family is a conglomerate of individual conglomerates of individual atomic particles that are held together by their mutual attractions towards one another resulting from their own individual and personal affinities for completeness that are held together by their mutual attractions towards one another resulting from their own individual and personal affinities for completeness.

I suggest we are conscious beings because the conglomerate of individual particles which we are composed of are all conscious entities themselves, and all of us are looking to be and feel complete.

But honestly, who is to say that even the most tiny particle in the universe is not just as aware of its state as we are aware of our states?

 

[godnotgod]

I think there first needs to be a definition of consciousness and awareness.

I don't believe consciousness can be defined in rational, objective terms, as it exist prior to the subject/object split. IOW, it is consciousness attempting to see itself as an object of observation. The subject/object split exists in time and space, but consciousness does not exist in time or space. I make the distinction between consciousness and mind; mind exists in time and space; consciousness is transcendent of either.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I can see, consciousness most likely evolved in us as a defense mechanism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can we honestly say that a hydrogen atom is completely oblivious that it has become attached to an oxygen molecule?

Yes. Quite apart from the inaccurate description of atoms which is incompatible with with actual models in atomic/subatomic physics, there remains the fact that there exists no possible mechanism whereby any hydrogen atom could be understood as attached to a molecule (a ficticious conceptual simplification), let alone any possible way for any atom to physically represent any conceptual awareness involving macroscopic atomic systems and human categorizations of phenomena so as to possess some understanding in terms of macroscopic molecular configurations

 

[godnotgod]

I
But honestly, who is to say that even the most tiny particle in the universe is not just as aware of its state as we are aware of our states?

The ordinary conditioned mind thinks there is an 'I' that is self-aware, but in reality, when looked for, we find no such 'i'. IOW, 'I' is an illusion; a self-created principle. So there is no agent of consciousness; there is only consciousness itself, manifesting itself as you, I, and every atom in the Universe, just as the ocean can manifest itself as a wave.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes. Quite apart from the inaccurate description of atoms which is incompatible with with actual models in atomic/subatomic physics, there remains the fact that there exists no possible mechanism whereby any hydrogen atom could be understood as attached to a molecule (a ficticious conceptual simplification), let alone any possible way for any atom to physically represent any conceptual awareness involving macroscopic atomic systems and human categorizations of phenomena so as to possess some understanding in terms of macroscopic molecular configurations

Yes, but if Max Planck is correct, that:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

then it is not any particular atom that is itself conscious, but it is the consciousness behind the atom that is aware of the activities of the atom.

 

[godnotgod]

So far as I can see, consciousness most likely evolved in us as a defense mechanism.

Well, defense mechanisms certainly evolved and became hard-wired via the brain, but consciousness was perhaps the driving force?

 

[godnotgod]

 

[Sunstone]

Consciousness is that little monkey that sits on top of an elephant, excitedly bouncing about and madly chattering away at all it notices, thinking its chatter is directing the behavior of the elephant. Meanwhile, the elephant largely -- albeit not entirely -- ignores the monkey and mostly goes its own way.

The Great Illusion of Consciousness, an illusion most of us can see through only with enormous difficulty, is that consciousness is the primary decision maker, the thing in charge. In actuality, it seems to be much more like a mere commentator on decisions that are made on a more fundamental level of the brain.

Where it does seem to have a measure of influence is in inhibiting behaviors, in -- so to speak -- second guessing decisions made by that elephant. It does not so much play the role of the author, the writer or creator of our behavior, as that of the editor.

I will say it again, I think consciousness must have evolved in us as a defense mechanism of sorts. It appears that its primary function is to provide us with some means of recognizing certain categories of threats to us. If someone throws a rock at you, you are likely to instinctively duck: You don't need consciousness to avoid the rock, and indeed, attempting to consciously think through what to do when you see the rock coming at you is likely to result in your freezing up and getting hit. But if someone is merely planning to throw a rock at you, it seems to be consciousness that picks up on subtle cues in order to become aware of the scheme -- thus giving you an early warning of danger to you. In effect, the evolution of consciousness expanded our awareness of dangers, and potential dangers, to us.

Of course, I also think there may have been other causes of its evolution in us -- for instance, it seems to help with some aspects of planning -- but however much as additional driving forces in its evolution those other reasons may have been, their existence does not preclude that consciousness also evolved -- or even primarily evolved -- as some sort defense mechanism.

I think the apparent fact that consciousness most likely evolved as some sort of defense mechanism has something to do with its subjectivity. It basically creates a psychological sense of self, which is, of course, hugely useful if it is indeed true that it majorly serves or functions as a defense mechanism. After all, it would be mighty hard to defend your self if you had absolutely no sense of self.

At any rate, those are just some ideas about consciousness that I find intriguing. Of course, I don't know how true they are.

 

[David T]

The problem with it is that it sets up a subject/object split, but that runs up against the fact that the questioner is consciousness itself. So it would be much more fruitful to ask: 'who is it that is asking the question?'. Then we might get somewhere.

Exactly!! I think I wasn't to start a new university program called scholarology!!! Where it's dedicated to the study of scholar in a scholarly fashion!! W would create completely new abstractive symbolizations about abstractive symbolizations and talk in symbolic terms that only we would understAnd. I am sure there would be rebellious scholarogists who would then want to study scholaroligists studying scholars!!! Abstraction upon abstraction upon abstraction and eventually we arrive at idiocracy!! Oh wait it's real!!!

 

[David T]

MeNtally I want to!!!

 

[Sonofason]

Yes. Quite apart from the inaccurate description of atoms which is incompatible with with actual models in atomic/subatomic physics, there remains the fact that there exists no possible mechanism whereby any hydrogen atom could be understood as attached to a molecule (a ficticious conceptual simplification), let alone any possible way for any atom to physically represent any conceptual awareness involving macroscopic atomic systems and human categorizations of phenomena so as to possess some understanding in terms of macroscopic molecular configurations

This response contains a lot of wordiness, but is quite deficient as an explanation why you answered yes.

 

[Sonofason]

The ordinary conditioned mind thinks there is an 'I' that is self-aware, but in reality, when looked for, we find no such 'i'. IOW, 'I' is an illusion; a self-created principle. So there is no agent of consciousness; there is only consciousness itself, manifesting itself as you, I, and every atom in the Universe, just as the ocean can manifest itself as a wave.

That makes a whole lot more sense to me than trying to suggest that consciousness only exists in complex living organisms.

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly!! I think I wasn't to start a new university program called scholarology!!! Where it's dedicated to the study of scholar in a scholarly fashion!! W would create completely new abstractive symbolizations about abstractive symbolizations and talk in symbolic terms that only we would understAnd. I am sure there would be rebellious scholarogists who would then want to study scholaroligists studying scholars!!! Abstraction upon abstraction upon abstraction and eventually we arrive at idiocracy!! Oh wait it's real!!!

ha ha ha...

 

[godnotgod]

That makes a whole lot more sense to me than trying to suggest that consciousness only exists in complex living organisms.

As humans, our problem is that we have consciousness on the brain, so to speak..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

An interesting overview of philosophical and scientific thinking on this question.

Some notes on what is covered:

- Being conscious is the only way we know we exist;
- It is generally agreed that consciousness arises in the brain;
- The brain uses 20% of the energy use but is only 2% of our mass;
- Scientists are trying to establish which parts of the brain are essential for consciousness;
- The binding problem - how does the brain integrate sensory and internal information?
- How and why did consciousness evolve?
- The Theory of Mind - is empathy an indicator of consciousness? How about self-recognition?
- The hard problem of consciousness - why do we have subjective experience at all? Is consciousness really a cognitive illusion, a user-friendly image of our world?

I'd take issue with the 2nd assumption, can the brain really independently manufacture consciousness? or is it merely a conduit for it?

Not so very long ago, the concept of a shared knowledge- existing in, and being drawn from, a great cloud of knowledge, through some invisible channel, that can instantaneously connect with billions of people across the globe, would be about as 'supernatural' a claim as one could imagine. Now this has been proven in principle by us mere mortals, but we didn't really invent this capability, we just discovered that it exists, inherently in the universe, and we used it in our own way.

 

[gnostic]

It all depend of one´s accept of evidences

Empirically, the numerous cultural Myths of Creation is evidences for me and the very same goes for "revelations" in the Bible and otherwhere and for instants the Shamanistic way of getting knowledge of cosmos.

Myths of creation are not evidences, because they are untestable, unverifiable.

They are merely unverifiable belief in the supernatural and in magic.

In Genesis 1, as an example, god created light with words, "Let there be light". This is magic, like witchcraft involving incantation, and hardly unique.

The Egyptian god Ptah, who was mainly worship in the city of Memphis, was said to created everything with magic words. Similarly, the Egyptian gods Re (Ra), Thoth and Isis used magic to create.

And the most powerful magic is knowing the secret but true name of god. In the myth about Re and Isis, the goddess Isis poisoned Re, in order to blackmailing the sun god to reveal his true name for the cure. So Re would only shared his secret name with Isis and her son Horus. Re's secret name gave them the most powerful magic.

In the myth of Enhil (or Akkadian-Babylonian Ea), he possessed the powerful Tablet of Destiny, which can be use to create or to be used as a weapon to uncreate. Powerful magic were written down on this tablet, so to use it, one would just simply read it.

In the Epic of Anzu, the Anzu is a thunderbird - part lion, part eagle - stole this tablet, and wreak havoc. Ninurta fought and defeated Anzu, and retrieved the Tablet of Destiny.

Like these other older myths, the Abrahamic deity using words, to create or destroy, is just a myth.

They are not evidences, but people not understanding nature, with wild imagination, would spin all sorts of superstitious stories.

I loved stories, but one thing I won't do is mistake them for reality.