• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is consciousness?

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
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?

 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
An interesting overview of philosophical and scientific thinking on this question.

- 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?
There is a bit of a problem with this last point. An illusion is a misinterpretation regarding sensory imput. Wouldn't the idea that we can misinterpret sensory imput imply consciousness? (Interpretation/misinterpretation being a function of consciousness?) Wouldn't knowing illusion and identifying it as such also imply consciousness?
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
There is a bit of a problem with this last point. An illusion is a misinterpretation regarding sensory imput. Wouldn't the idea that we can misinterpret sensory imput imply consciousness? (Interpretation/misinterpretation being a function of consciousness?) Wouldn't knowing illusion and identifying it as such also imply consciousness?

These are only some brief notes I put together, it is best to watch the video. I'm not clear how consciousness is being defined here, it sounds more like what we would call self-awareness, something unique to higher mammals. The question is more like why are we conscious of having experiences?
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
There is a bit of a problem with this last point. An illusion is a misinterpretation regarding sensory imput. Wouldn't the idea that we can misinterpret sensory imput imply consciousness? (Interpretation/misinterpretation being a function of consciousness?) Wouldn't knowing illusion and identifying it as such also imply consciousness?
These are only some brief notes I put together, it is best to watch the video. I'm not clear how consciousness is being defined here, it sounds more like what we would call self-awareness, something unique to higher mammals.
He (the philosopher with the white beard and mustache) basically said that "consciousness" is an illusion in that it doesn't cover everything that is going on in the brain--you don't see all of the processes going on in your computer when you are working with what is displayed on your desktop. He called this a "user friendly illusion" in that it hides all of the unconscious processes going on in the background.

Taking his analogy further, we can bring different normally background (unconscious) processes up into our desktop (consciousness,) such as consciously regulating our breathing. Some other animals, such as whales, don't have the luxury of relegating their breathing to their unconscious--they might drown! Every breath must be a conscious act--or at least habitual. (Does the ability to relegate breathing to the unconscious make us more advanced? If so, then why does conscious breathing comprise a large part of meditation?)
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
He (the philosopher with the white beard and mustache) basically said that "consciousness" is an illusion in that it doesn't cover everything that is going on in the brain--you don't see all of the processes going on in your computer when you are working with what is displayed on your desktop. He called this a "user friendly illusion" in that it hides all of the unconscious processes going on in the background.

Taking his analogy further, we can bring different normally background (unconscious) processes up into our desktop (consciousness,) such as consciously regulating our breathing. Some other animals, such as whales, don't have the luxury of relegating their breathing to their unconscious--they might drown! Every breath must be a conscious act--or at least habitual. (Does the ability to relegate breathing to the unconscious make us more advanced? If so, then why does conscious breathing comprise a large part of meditation?)

Yes, whales choose to breathe only when they surface, while with us breathing it is a largely autonomous process ( except when we're underwater! ). I think breathing is a popular meditation object because it is always present and available, it is always there as a focus for awareness.

I think here though the question is more about asking why we are aware of having our experiences at all, as opposed to not being aware of them like the lower mammals. Why do cognitive processes have an associated internal experience? I think the suggestion is that it gives us an evolutionary advantage by presenting us with a "user-friendly" interface...or something like that. ;)
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The next videos on Youtube after that one, are then trying to show scientifically that consciousness affects matter, thus can be shown it is also outside of our brain.

The documentary 'Today I Died', has some one watching their brain operation take place, where they were clinically dead, and thus the doctors try questioning if consciousness exists on a quantum level.

The lectures, and data collected by Rupert Sheldrake try to show how there are numerous phenomenon, that show interconnected consciousness working outside of us.

Thus the scientist trying to quantify it only within the brain, are missing the additional evidence that suggests otherwise. :)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Its´all about electric communication inside and outsides us :)

Watch this excellent video, "Electric You - Electric Universe" -
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Yes, whales choose to breathe only when they surface, while with us breathing it is a largely autonomous process ( except when we're underwater! ). I think breathing is a popular meditation object because it is always present and available, it is always there as a focus for awareness.

I think here though the question is more about asking why have "self-awareness" at all, why we are aware of having our experiences, as opposed to not being aware of them like the lower mammals. I think the suggestion is that it gives us an evolutionary advantage by presenting us with a "user-friendly" interface...or something like that. ;)
Well, does whales consciously breathing make them "higher animals" than us, who are often unconscious of our breath?
 

Papoon

Active Member
Well, does whales consciously breathing make them "higher animals" than us, who are often unconscious of our breath?
Maybe we just assume that whales are more conscious of their breathing.

Throw a human baby into a pool of water. The baby will be undisturbed, and will not breath until they calmly reach the surface. Generally speaking.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
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 have worked on this a bit(Years)

I believe consciousness is a thought feedback loop in the brain. Non-humans only get feedback from the environment. For non-humans thoughts can only be heard if spoken. In humans all thoughts loop back and come in as a new idea, which we can add feeling and priority to. I came to this because using evolution, it has to be a simple step from our closest cousin to us and the only thing that could explain such a major advance but be simple was a thought feedback loop. It is a rather simple thing to build. It would be an evolutionary advantage as we can now run simulations in the brain without acting them out.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Exchange in another forum. May be helpful:

Aupmanyav: 'Objective reality' can only be understood by science experiments and discrimination - the last property is present in our brain.
Koyaanisqatsi: So "we" do not know/experience direct or "objective" reality, but our bodies evidently do and that information is likewise communicated to the brain and the brain evidently imbues that into our construction as well.
Aupmanyav: Our bodies also do not know/experience 'objective reality', because they have very limited range of perception (just enough for our existence).[/Quote]
Koyaanisqatsi: I don't know what that means. Any "range" at all would mean it's directly experiencing an objective reality (i.e., a multidimensional matter/energy universe that exists regardless of the body's existence).

Well, technically "objective reality" can only be derived by subjectively interpreted (and subjectively conducted) experiments. As to any "properties" they are all only ever present in our brain from the self's perspective. Iow, our brain is in fact in a vat--we just call it a skull. And the observer we call "I" is a construct of that brain. So the "I" can't ever directly experience anything other than the brain activity that creates/recreates/maintains it.

So what's happening is the dumb brain/body is the objective reality that creates the animated analogue of itself (clumsy word choice I know, but we're still in that evolutionary stage); "user illusion" or "I" or "self" or the "observer" would also do. This animated constructed "self" is the homunculus in Descartes' Cartesian theatre, it's just made out of some sort of neuronal algorithm.

This is an excellent piece you may enjoy: Come Back, Homunculus—All Is Forgiven!

And although it's behind an idiot wall, for those who have special credentials: What is the function of the claustrum? Here is the opening section for those who give a ****e:

Quote:
Most people working on the brain have heard of the claustrum-it was known to Ramon y Cajal-but very few have any idea what it does. It is thin and fairly small-in humans, its volume is a quarter of one percentage of that of the cerebral cortex (Kowianski et al. 1999)-and so it is easily overlooked. Crick (1994) described the claustrum briefly, but since then we have left it to one side. So what prompted this articles

A key property of conscious sensations is their integrated nature. You are not aware of isolated percepts, but of a single, unifying experience. When holding a rose, you smell its fragrance and see its red petals while feeling its textured stem with your fingers. The philosopher Searle (2004) refers to the 'conscious field' in this context.'

There is an approximate consensus among scholars who speculate on the neuronal basis of consciousness that its correlate must involve some form of cooperative activity, mediated by electrical and chemical synapses between forebrain neurons which are responding to different aspects of the same conscious experience. In vision, to which we have paid special attention, this would mean correlated activity among the different neuronal representations that encode the different visual aspects of the same object or event. We have suggested that this takes the form of coalitions of active neurons in cortex, thalamus and closely associated structures whose spiking activity (in some form) has reached a special threshold, and whose interactions tend to support each other (Crick & Koch 2003; Koch 2004).

These neurons are distributed over large distances (spanning, in humans, many centimetres) that include (for vision) visual cortex at the back of the brain, the frontal eye field and other frontal regions, posterior parietal and inferior temporal cortices, the hippo- campus, and the associated thalamic and basal ganglia nuclei. Many of the neurons in these areas code for local aspects of any one scene, such as the orientation of an edge, or the colour and depth of a surface patch. Much of this information is ambiguous and is compatible with many different interpretations of the overall scene. In mathematical terms, the visual input is ill-posed (Poggio et al. 1984), if only because the brain is trying to reconstruct a three-dimensional represen- tation of object and events occurring in the outside world from two-dimensional and noisy retinal inputs. Resolving these ambiguities must involve interactions among large groups of cells, most likely cortical pyramidal neurons, since their axons carry the bulk of long-distance communications within, and to struc- tures outside, the cortex. These synaptically mediated interactions among assemblies of neurons involve both cooperation as well as winner-takes-all style compe- tition (Hebb 1949; Palm 1990). This competition can be biased by bottom-up, saliency-driven or top-down volitionally controlled attention (Desimone & Duncan 1995), as well as by the expected reward (Maunsell 2004).

A key feature of almost all neuronal theories of consciousness is the need for continuous interactions among groups of widely dispersed pyramidal neurons that express themselves in the ongoing stream of conscious percepts, images and thoughts.

This is apparent in Edelman and Tononi's concept of the dynamical core. This is a shifting assembly of spiking neurons throughout the forebrain that is stabilized using massive re-entrant feedback connec- tions (Tononi & Edelman 1998; Edelman & Tononi 2000). Its representational content, integrated, yet at the same time highly differentiated, corresponds to the unitary yet amazingly particular content of pheno- menal consciousness.

Dehaene & Changeux (2004; see also Dehaene et al. 2003) postulate a widely dispersed set of reciprocally connected pyramidal neurons with long-distance axons linking most, if not all, the cortical and thalamic regions. This network implements a neuronal workspace, a term borrowed from Baars's (1997, 2002) cognitive theory of consciousness. It distinguishes a large array of unconscious specialized processors running in parallel from a unified, limited-capacity 'workspace' that allows the local processors to exchange information.

Although using different terminologies, the basic ideas of these neuroscientists are surprisingly similar to ours: the need to rapidly integrate and bind information in neurons that are situated across distinct cortical and thalamic regions (see also Bachmann 2000; Llinas 2001). It is in the light of this consensus and the existing, albeit limited, knowledge of the anatomical and functional organization of the claustrum, that the structure attracted us again. It appears to be in an ideal position to integrate the most diverse kinds of information that underlie conscious perception, cognition and action. What follows is an attempt to illustrate this and advocate the need for research examining its role.
continued ..
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
And here's a more layman-like article from Scientific American: Neuronal "Superhub" Might Generate Consciousness

ETA: Found this as well (also behind an idiot wall): The effect of claustrum lesions on human consciousness and recovery of function. Abstract and snippet (and note that "LOC" means "lose of consciousness" in case that isn't clear):

Quote:
Abstract: Crick and Koch proposed that the claustrum plays a crucial role in consciousness. Their proposal was based on the structure and connectivity of the claustrum that suggested it had a role in coordinating a set of diverse brain functions. Given the few human studies investigating this claim, we decided to study the effects of claustrum lesions on consciousness in 171 combat veterans with penetrating traumatic brain injuries. Additionally, we studied the effects of claustrum lesions and loss of consciousness on long-term cognitive abilities. Claustrum damage was associated with the duration, but not frequency, of loss of consciousness, indicating that the claustrum may have an important role in regaining, but not maintaining, consciousness. Total brain volume loss, but not claustrum lesions, was associated with long-term recovery of neurobehavioral functions. Our findings constrain the current understanding of the neurobehavioral functions of the claustrum and its role in maintaining and regaining consciousness.

Crick and Koch proposed that the claustrum is the conductor of the brain’s orchestra, integrating and binding together different cortical inputs, such as color, smell, sound, and touch, into a single unifying experience in consciousness (Crick & Koch, 2005). The claustrum is a thin sheet of subcortical gray matter, separated laterally from the insula by the extreme capsule and medially from the putamen by the external capsule (Milardi et al., 2015). Although the function of the claustrum remains mysterious, its anatomical connections and cellular composition are known. The claustrum has extensive reciprocal projections, connecting the claustrum to numerous cortical and subcortical regions, such as the prefrontal cortex, primary sensory cortices, thalamus, and reticular formation (Fig. 1a) (Smith and Alloway, 2010, Torgerson et al., 2014 and Torgerson and Van Horn, 2014). Moreover, the claustrum consists of a heterogeneous mixture of cells that differ in size, shape and neurochemical composition; and single cells that possess extensive dendritic branching (Braak and Braak, 1982 and Rahman and Baizer, 2007). The structure and connectivity of the claustrum suggest that its function involves coordinating a set of diverse brain functions (Smythies et al., 2012, Smythies et al., 2014a and Smythies et al., 2014b).

Only recently, attention has been directed toward the claustrum and its possible involvement in consciousness. In a single case study, researchers demonstrated that consciousness could be immediately disrupted when the region between the insula and claustrum was electrically stimulated (Koubeissi, Bartolomei, Beltagy, & Picard, 2014). Consciousness was regained when stimulation was stopped. Moreover, stimulation in this region led to increased EEG synchrony in the medial parietal and posterior frontal regions. Nevertheless, it is difficult to generalize findings from a case study of a patient with intractable epilepsy to the general population. A second study analyzed user reports of Salvia divinorum, a psychoactive plant that contains the active ingredient salvinorin A, a κ-opioid agonist ( Stiefel, Merrifield, & Holcombe, 2014). Subjective reports described experiences of loss or altered awareness of the external environment and bodily sensations and image. Because the claustrum has a particularly high density of salvinorin A receptors, the consciousness-altering effects of S. divinorum were attributed to drug-induced disruption of the claustrum. However, salvinorin A receptors are not exclusive to the claustrum; there is also a fairly high density of receptors located in the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, nucleus accumbens and putamen. Disruptions to other brain regions could also explain the consciousness-altering effects. It is difficult to draw conclusions about the function of the claustrum based on studies such as those reviewed above. A challenge in studying the claustrum is due partly to its poor spatial resolution in neuroimaging and the difficulty in obtaining a large sample of patients with lesions to the claustrum.

Here, we studied 171 Vietnam War veterans who sustained focal, low velocity penetrating traumatic brain injuries (pTBIs) during combat and participated in Phases 2 and 3 of the Vietnam Head Injury Study (VHIS). All patients had similar etiologies: penetrating head injuries due to bullets and shrapnel. We defined loss of consciousness (LOC) as impairments in wakefulness resulting from pTBI. Patients who experienced LOC were estimated to have Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of less than 9, which correspond with moderate or severe traumatic brain injuries (Cristofori and Levin, 2015 and Salazar et al., 1986). These patients were unable to respond to verbal commands, but may have shown some motor response by withdrawing to pain (Salazar et al., 1986). All patients participating in this study have had detailed neurobehavioral testing with well-described neurologic outcomes. To study the effect of claustrum lesions on LOC, we compared the frequency and duration of LOC experienced by patients with and without claustrum lesions. Based on previous studies that found an association between the left hemisphere and LOC (Koubeissi et al., 2014, Levin et al., 1989 and Salazar et al., 1986), we hypothesized that the left claustrum, in particular, plays a key role in consciousness. In addition, we examined the long-term effects of claustrum lesions on cognitive abilities.

Our study is the largest study to date to investigate the effects of claustrum lesions on consciousness in humans. We found that claustrum damage is moderately associated with the duration, but not the frequency, of LOC (although we did find a small effect on LOC in patients with left claustrum lesions when compared to patients without claustrum lesions). Claustrum damage was a better predictor of prolonged LOC compared to lesion size. Two other studies, as previously mentioned, have also found an association between the claustrum and LOC; they were able to either disrupt or alter consciousness using intracranial stimulation and κ-opioid agonist ( Koubeissi et al., 2014 and Stiefel et al., 2014).

We also did not find selective long-term consequences of claustrum lesions or LOC on different aspects of cognitive processing. At 35 years post-injury, patients with claustrum lesions did not exhibit long-term cognitive and language impairments after total lesion size was taken into account. Similarly, patients who had their claustrum resectioned as a result of low-grade gliomas, recovered and exhibited normal neurological examinations 3 months after having surgery (Duffau, Mandonnet, Gatignol, & Capelle, 2007); and patients who experienced uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury (i.e., GCS scores between 13 to 15) and brief LOC did not exhibit differences in attention, learning, memory, language or executive functioning within 1 week post-injury (Iverson, Lovell, & Smith, 2000). While patients with claustrum lesions may have an increased likelihood of experiencing an extended LOC, this increased risk did not impact their ability to process the contents of consciousness when evaluated 35 years post-injury.

To which I would say from my armchair, perhaps this is due more to neural plasticity than to anything definitive about the claustrum? After all, "damage" and "lesions" evidently do not correlate and the fact that it took three months for patients to exhibit "normal neurological" functioning after having their claustrum resectioned as well as one week recovery time for "mild traumatic brain injury" argues for plasticity accounting for the brain's ability to "re-route" critical functions imho.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Its´all about electric communication inside and outsides us :)
Watch this excellent video, "Electric You - Electric Universe" -

It's a long video, are you able to give some bullet points?

And could you explain briefly what you mean by electric communication "outside" us?
 
Last edited:

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Aupmanyav: 'Objective reality' can only be understood by science experiments and discrimination - the last property is present in our brain.
Koyaanisqatsi: So "we" do not know/experience direct or "objective" reality, but our bodies evidently do and that information is likewise communicated to the brain and the brain evidently imbues that into our construction as well.
Aupmanyav: Our bodies also do not know/experience 'objective reality', because they have very limited range of perception (just enough for our existence).
]Koyaanisqatsi:[/B] I don't know what that means. Any "range" at all would mean it's directly experiencing an objective reality (i.e., a multidimensional matter/energy universe that exists regardless of the body's existence).

I agree with your point of view here. I would say that what we actually experience is a limited set of phenomena via a process of perception, based on which we construct a subjective mental model of "out there".
 
Last edited:

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Ahhhh.....the gnosis of our present state of awareness,
the sub and surface sensitivities, the touch and go,
our intermingling with the known realities themselves.
~
I really start to think consciousness is a web,
that ends with our death,
then....memories to others.
~
'mud
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It's a long video, are you able to give some bullet points?

And could you explain briefly what you mean by electric communication "outside" us?
In short: All atoms in our body works via electromagnetic properties and connections and our brain can percieve electromagnetic informations from outside our body.
Humans also have a electromagnetic sphere and circuit around the body. This electric field contains memory from the individual and this individual can connect with other electromagnetic fields and informations - and really far out in space. (This happens often in the so called out-of -body-experiences and even in deep meditation).
The human conciousness is not limited or locked to our bodies. It is only limited by our modern/techical way of thinking. The ancient and natural way of gathering relevant human knowledge is intuitive and visionary.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
What is consciousness?

My view is that consciousness is that which subjectively experiences. Nothing in the physical universe matters except subjective experience.

Where does this consciousness come from. I believe it is the only fundamental thing in the universe, The physical universe is just a creative emanation of this fundamental primordial thing called consciousness. As I believe physicist Max Planck has said 'we can't get behind what this consciousness is'. Life as humans for example are sparks of the infinite consciousness animating a temporary limited physical vehicle for the purpose of finite experiencing.

I disagree with the materialist school of thought that consciousness can be created by any structure of physical matter. It would just be atoms and electrons moving around with no single experiencer. What is there that makes them experience as a single entity?
 
Last edited:
Top