Consciousness

[George S]

The conscious is a passenger on a bus it is not driving; the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans but not always capable of carrying them out (when in conflict the unconscious, the driver, wins). The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind. Never mind.
The driver is responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time that pattern is seen it may be avoided, altered or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment, and presenting it to the conscious for decision-making.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This reminds me, Dennett has a new book out.

 

[fromderinside]

Apparently mirror cells are important all over the brain. Leads me to believe that consciousness, if one must continue to harbor such a term, is an individual's chief social rationalist.

 

[rousseau]

Is 'consciousness' an old folk term? Something arisen to describe our sense of agency?

Why can't we just be what we are? Human.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is 'consciousness' an old folk term? Something arisen to describe our sense of agency?

Why can't we just be what we are? Human.

To dismiss an idea, just say it's folk terminology.


The notion of consciousness as we use it here was created by rationalist and empiricist philosophers, people like Locke, Descartes, Hume etc. It's a folk term only in that the idea was accepted, even embrassed, by 'folks'.

We can say we are just human. We can even choose to embrasse Behaviourism for example. Or the theory of evolution. But that won't remove the inevitability of the notion of consciousness. It would be just as absurd to dismiss consciousness as it would be to dismiss reality.

There's also nothing as dramatically noteworthy as consciousness about being human. Being human is even irrelevant because we can conceive of the existence of any number of other naturally occurring organisms that wouldn't be humans but would possess consciousness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Leads me to believe that consciousness, if one must continue to harbor such a term, is an individual's chief social rationalist.

If you think it's abhorrent don't harbor it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The conscious is a passenger on a bus it is not driving; the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans but not always capable of carrying them out (when in conflict the unconscious, the driver, wins). The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind. Never mind.
The driver is responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time that pattern is seen it may be avoided, altered or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment, and presenting it to the conscious for decision-making.

This looks furiously like somebody in need of explaining away something that's somewhat grating.

If you were capable of thinking consciousness entirely in terms of something like a piece of software there would be no need for the explaining away because there would be nothing to be explained away. So, just the fact that you have this urge, which is obviously a widespread ailment among this forum's usual posters, shows that there is a mystery to be explained away, a mystery for you as much as it is one for all human beings.

The mirror neurons in me deeply feel for you.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Is 'consciousness' an old folk term? Something arisen to describe our sense of agency?

Why can't we just be what we are? Human.

To dismiss an idea, just say it's folk terminology.


The notion of consciousness as we use it here was created by rationalist and empiricist philosophers, people like Locke, Descartes, Hume etc. It's a folk term only in that the idea was accepted, even embrassed, by 'folks'.

We can say we are just human. We can even choose to embrasse Behaviourism for example. Or the theory of evolution. But that won't remove the inevitability of the notion of consciousness. It would be just as absurd to dismiss consciousness as it would be to dismiss reality.

There's also nothing as dramatically noteworthy as consciousness about being human. Being human is even irrelevant because we can conceive of the existence of any number of other naturally occurring organisms that wouldn't be humans but would possess consciousness.
EB

To me, consciousness seems to be one of those terms that exists, but which we haven't quite nailed down, much like the word mind. Everyone talks about it, and is sure we have it, but isn't 100% clear on what it is or what it means.

What I'm proposing by stating that 'we are human', is that there is an objective reality to the experience of being human. What we experience is that reality, whatever it is. Maybe, then, if we aren't clear on what 'consciousness' or 'mind' mean, these terms are our best guess at that objective reality, but not quite hitting the nail on the head.

It seems to me that people want to believe that there is a mover in the system, because we have a sense that there is, but that does not make it true. Rather, I state 'we are human', because whatever the objective reality behind our experience is, it is static and unchangeable. Discussing 'mind' and 'consciousness' won't change it, whatever it is.

My best guess? We're living things which have an inherent relationship to the environment via our sensory systems, and neural mechanisms developed to react to stimulus in the context of the society in which we evolved. What people term 'consciousness' is actually just describing 'awareness', the constant input and processing of sensory stimuli from the environment.

Think about this one: if we were born with no sensory receptors would 'consciousness' be possible? So, in that way to be conscious is analogous with being aware.

 

[fromderinside]

The conscious is a passenger on a bus it is not driving; the spokesman for the body/mind responsible for explaining why the body/mind did what it did. Responsible for telling the driver where to go. Consciousness is the on-board computer capable of reasoning, capable of drawing inferences, capable of making plans but not always capable of carrying them out (when in conflict the unconscious, the driver, wins). The mind is embodied. No body, nobody, no mind. Never mind.
The driver is responsible for taking input from the environment and remembering patterns so the next time that pattern is seen it may be avoided, altered or repeated depending on the feedback from the environment, and presenting it to the conscious for decision-making.

This looks furiously like somebody in need of explaining away something that's somewhat grating.

If you were capable of thinking consciousness entirely in terms of something like a piece of software there would be no need for the explaining away because there would be nothing to be explained away. So, just the fact that you have this urge, which is obviously a widespread ailment among this forum's usual posters, shows that there is a mystery to be explained away, a mystery for you as much as it is one for all human beings.

The mirror neurons in me deeply feel for you.
EB

Dealing with something like consciousness in a universe populated with machines and mechanics as the olny known being able to express such a notion is a bit like examining a phenomenon as a scientific object. Humans are the only known thing reporting consciousness, the only known observers of consciousness, therefore as it is a singular object lacking in comparisons or other instances of consciousness with other beings. There is no other instance of it with which it can be compared so scientific empirical methods cannot truly be applied.

 

[untermensche]

You can talk about the experience of consciousness.

That is as far as you can go.

That is as much as we understand.

And the experience is mainly a bunch of self talk.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Is 'consciousness' an old folk term? Something arisen to describe our sense of agency?

Why can't we just be what we are? Human.

You say that as if it's been decided. We've only a few thousand years to think about this, and a few hundred really with the scientific method, and I think figuring out what it is that makes us "human" is still being discovered. Even in it's infancy perhaps.

- - - Updated - - -

You can talk about the experience of consciousness.

That is as far as you can go.

That is as much as we understand.

And the experience is mainly a bunch of self talk.

Heh. Talk to yourself in your head. No problem. Talk to others out loud, again no problem. Talk to yourself out loud like you think to yourself , now there's a problem.

 

[migrant]

I think untermensche has introduced some realism to this discussion.
We experience a world of physical matter, via the 'Ghost in the Machine' that we call consciousness.
Physicality and consciousness are the sum total of our experience.

Many ancient cultures knew that consciousness is not 'locked in' to the body, and for those who are curious, there is a wealth of material available on out of body experiences and astral travel which, to my mind, provide overwhelming evidence that consciousness can operate without the physical.
Look at the evidence and make your own mind up -- unless you're a real dummy, in which case you can dismiss the evidence unseen.

 

[DBT]

To be conscious/aware of something is consciousness. To be conscious of both 'self' and 'other' and to have the ability to think and to feel and to act consciously may be defined as 'mind.'

 

[untermensche]

Heh. Talk to yourself in your head. No problem. Talk to others out loud, again no problem. Talk to yourself out loud like you think to yourself , now there's a problem.

That is Chomsky's point.

Language is mainly a process of thought, but the way we think is not the way we speak out loud. Thinking is hierarchical while spoken or even written language has to be linear.

The way we speak out loud is like eating with a fork. Something we can do, but something learned not innate. Making sounds is innate but not speaking with language, that must be learned through experience.

The thinking part of language is innate though. Once a language is acquired the self talk begins without any effort. And continues without effort or even desire for it to be there.

 

[bilby]

I think untermensche has introduced some realism to this discussion.
We experience a world of physical matter, via the 'Ghost in the Machine' that we call consciousness.
Physicality and consciousness are the sum total of our experience.

Many ancient cultures knew that consciousness is not 'locked in' to the body, and for those who are curious, there is a wealth of material available on out of body experiences and astral travel which, to my mind, provide overwhelming evidence that consciousness can operate without the physical.
Look at the evidence and make your own mind up -- unless you're a real dummy, in which case you can dismiss the evidence unseen.

There is no possible mechanism by which a non-physical consciousness could communicate with the physical world on scales relevant to animals or their brains.

If any such non-physical consciousness existed, it couldn't possibly have any interaction with physical reality.

I have looked at the evidence; and none of it is even slightly convincing. Quantum Field Theory says it cannot be true; anecdotes from kooks and charlatans don't even begin to meet the necessary conditions for us to discard or amend QFT.

Dualism is less plausible than perpetual motion; and anyone who claims to have demonstrated either is a fraud.

 

[bigfield]

Many ancient cultures knew that consciousness is not 'locked in' to the body, and for those who are curious, there is a wealth of material available on out of body experiences and astral travel which, to my mind, provide overwhelming evidence that consciousness can operate without the physical.
Look at the evidence and make your own mind up -- unless you're a real dummy, in which case you can dismiss the evidence unseen.

Kindly direct us to the wealth of evidence you consider authoritative so I can have a good laugh.

 

[untermensche]

There is no possible mechanism by which a non-physical consciousness could communicate with the physical world on scales relevant to animals or their brains.

If any such non-physical consciousness existed, it couldn't possibly have any interaction with physical reality.

No possible known mechanism. Within the realm of current knowledge. Which is not complete.

Claiming humans understand everything or even have access to all possible phenomena is not demonstrable.

 

[rousseau]

You say that as if it's been decided. We've only a few thousand years to think about this, and a few hundred really with the scientific method, and I think figuring out what it is that makes us "human" is still being discovered. Even in it's infancy perhaps.

Understanding what makes us human is certainly becoming more refined, but I wouldn't say that it's in it's infancy. Read books like 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blank Slate' and it's clear that we have a very good idea of what it means to be human, and how we work.

Does the average person walking down the street know what it means to be human? No, but the knowledge is there.

 

[bilby]

There is no possible mechanism by which a non-physical consciousness could communicate with the physical world on scales relevant to animals or their brains.

If any such non-physical consciousness existed, it couldn't possibly have any interaction with physical reality.

No possible known mechanism. Within the realm of current knowledge. Which is not complete.

Claiming humans understand everything or even have access to all possible phenomena is not demonstrable.

Nor necessary.

QFT is complete at human scales. It is fundamental to the theory that forces have particles that carry them; and that those particles have predictable masses; and that sufficient energy will generate all particles below a given mass.

The LHC has demonstrated that the only possible unknown forces must either be too short-range to allow separation of the hypothetical soul from the body (by many orders of magnitude) or too long range to have measurable effects on scales smaller than that of Solar Systems.

There's plenty we don't know. But the things we DO know are sufficient to rule out a lot of hypothetical ideas - the whole point of scientific research is to start from 'anything is possible', and then eliminate impossible hypotheses until we are left with useful knowledge.

Amongst those things now known to be impossible are perpetual motion machines; homeopathic medicines; and dualism.

Lots of people still believe that these things are possible, and the technical term for such people is 'mistaken', 'uneducated' or simply 'wrong'. These things are NOT possible, and there's no unknown extra information that could arise to suddenly change that assessment, that would not also require the total abandonment of huge chunks of well established experimental evidence.

Big scientific revolutions don't do that. When relativity superseded Newton's theory of gravity, objects continued to fall when dropped; pendula continued to swing at predictable rates; and tides continued to ebb and flow.

We may well show that QFT is 'wrong', just as Einstein showed that universal gravitation was 'wrong'. But we can be sure that it's not wrong enough for any future discoveries to enable the existence of disembodied minds or souls. Just as we can be sure that any future correction to Relativity will not cause objects to fall up.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I think untermensche has introduced some realism to this discussion.
We experience a world of physical matter, via the 'Ghost in the Machine' that we call consciousness.
Physicality and consciousness are the sum total of our experience.

Many ancient cultures knew that consciousness is not 'locked in' to the body, and for those who are curious, there is a wealth of material available on out of body experiences and astral travel which, to my mind, provide overwhelming evidence that consciousness can operate without the physical.
Look at the evidence and make your own mind up -- unless you're a real dummy, in which case you can dismiss the evidence unseen.

Susanne Blackmoore.

Susannae Blackmoore was a true believer in OOBEs who tried for years to demonstrate that such things were not just illusions, but were real. Deeply involved in world of parapsychology in the 70's and 80's, she finally realized that there was no such thing, it was all illusion. And that the researchers who claimed they had evidence otherwise were self deluded and that parapsychology was more pseudoscience than science.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore

Another person who believed in OOBE was Elron Hubbard, who spent years trying to achieve true OOBE type abilities, and failed. This according to a large number of ex-Scientologists who spent years in Scientology trying to achieve such states of super-human abilities as OT-8's All Hubbard ever achieved was self-delusion and conning others into buying into the delusion. There are lots of books on Amazon that purport to teach you how to OOBE out and yet, nobody has ever taken James Randi's $1 million dollar prize by demonstrating that parapsychological ability.
"Exteriorization with full perceptics" doesn't exist, not even for Scientologist OT-8's.

Certainly not any Scientologist OT-8's.

This is not something that is just dismissed unseen by all people, but is dismissed because nobody can demonstrate that there is any factual basis to any such claims.