For a scientific concept of consciousness

[Speakpigeon]

Where have you been all those years? There's a long-standing conventional distinction between 'phenomenal consciousness' and 'access consciousness'. No? Subjective experience is probably what people mean by phenomenal consciousness. I also call that 'subjective consciousness' to distinguish it from 'objective consciousness', which seems like access consciousness, I think, and which is what most scientists are usually prepared to talk about.

I see no distinction, besides different words used.

How is objective consciousness different from the consciousness you experience (your subjective experience of consciousness)?

What is the distinction between the two?

I was reporting usage.

I didn't invent the expression 'access consciousness' or 'phenomenal consciousness', and my use of subjective and objective consciousness only reflect what I see as different notions of consciousness other people seem to have.

<skip> philosophers insist that access consciousness differs from "phenomenal consciousness" (e.g., the way qualia feel), <skip>

<skip> Dehaene believes that "access consciousness" (being aware of and able to report on information) is the right definition to start with for scientific investigation.

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

Usage. See?

Good enough for you?

A scientific explanation of consciousness MUST explain how and why you experience what you experience.

Anything less is playing around.

That's a legitimate point of view. I'm looking for a consensus position good enough for science. Can you argue your position beyond the 'must' word?
EB

 

[untermensche]

This looks like seriously pent up expertise. You must be terribly frustrated no one seems interested!

And indeed, it wasn't what I was asking for. Could you please pay attention to what people are actually saying?


Still, you seem here to question the validity of very proposition you yourself initially submitted. I'm confused.

Anyway, I guess the definition you really want to submit is this logorrhea of your expertise where, as far as I can tell, the notion of consciousness is reductively reduced to strings of zeroes and ones processed by a human computer.

Well, if this can motivate a consensus here, why not.

We'll see what other people are motivated to say on this.
EB

In his defense he is describing consciousness.

Of some organisms about 500 to 700 million years ago.

The bare bones beginning of consciousness.

His problem is he is blind to later developments.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All I get from your link is "find a tutor"! Right...

And Google seems to agree...


Is it just me?
EB

Nope, me too.

Peez

Thanks, I was worried it might be some virus.


We'll just wait for DBT to get a tutoring on the secret world of Internet links.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A scientific explanation of consciousness MUST explain how and why you experience what you experience.

Anything less is playing around.

That's a legitimate point of view. I'm looking for a consensus position good enough for science. Can you argue your position beyond the 'must' word?
EB

Science will say that consciousness is known subjectively to the single organism that possesses it.

And the task of science is to understand objectively how all the subjective experience is generated.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thank you. It is a little out of date, but Dr. Koch still thought in 2009 at least that a good definition of consciousness remained elusive: "But how can consciousness—the notorious ineffable and ethereal stuff that can’t even be rigorously defined—be measured?" and "Instead of arguing with people about whether or not they are conscious of grammatical rules or when these rules are violated, wagering means that we can study consciousness without having an agreed-on formal definition of consciousness." <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-consciousness-measure-more-argue-less/>

Peez

Yes, sure, I'm aware of their view on the subject but we're not going to do any actual research here. We can afford to look for a consensus on a state-of-the-art concept of consciousness, although maybe there isn't any.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I see no distinction, besides different words used.

How is objective consciousness different from the consciousness you experience (your subjective experience of consciousness)?

What is the distinction between the two?

I was reporting usage...

And I am asking why? What is it good for?

What distinction is made by it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I was reporting usage...

And I am asking why? What is it good for?

What distinction is made by it?

Fair enough.

My take on this is that what I call 'subjective consciousness', what others may call 'phenomenal consciousness', if that's really the same thing, is consciousness as it appears from a subjective point of view. That's the experience you have of your own consciousness.

What I call 'objective consciousness', what others may call 'access consciousness', again if that's the same thing, is somebody's consciousness as it appears from somebody else vantage observation point.

Whether these two points of view should converge and eventually say the same thing, I just don't know.

The point is that these are two different perspectives that people actually use.
EB

 

[untermensche]

And I am asking why? What is it good for?

What distinction is made by it?

Fair enough.

My take on this is that what I call 'subjective consciousness', what others may call 'phenomenal consciousness', if that's really the same thing, is consciousness as it appears from a subjective point of view. That's the experience you have of your own consciousness.

What I call 'objective consciousness', what others may call 'access consciousness', again if that's the same thing, is somebody's consciousness as it appears from somebody else vantage observation point.

Whether these two points of view should converge and eventually say the same thing, I just don't know.

The point is that these are two different perspectives that people actually use.
EB

But we are examining things here, not accepting things.

The objective explanation has to account for the subjective experience or it is not an explanation. It has to account for more too but it has to explain ALL phenomena, even the subjective.

Or it is just pretending to be an explanation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But we are examining things here, not accepting things.

The objective explanation has to account for the subjective experience or it is not an explanation. It has to account for more too but it has to explain ALL phenomena, even the subjective.

Or it is just pretending to be an explanation.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Thanks for your contribution.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

This looks like seriously pent up expertise. You must be terribly frustrated no one seems interested!

And indeed, it wasn't what I was asking for. Could you please pay attention to what people are actually saying?

EB

Yeah, I was on a track more cogent but, it was after being awakened at 2 AM from a fitful sleep. Two hours later I inadvertently closed a developing post which I followed up with the tired screed you reposted.

The relevant stuff was there is continuous interaction up and down sensory paths and centers along with interactions between sense and motor modalities generating kind of a running now at primarily cortical sense, decision, and motor centers under control of arousal and awareness mechanisms as the basis for the sense of consciousness. The sentiment is pretty much in agreement with the deifinition I posted the previous afternoon.

Such broad interactivity of input and output information can be the basis for integrated awareness of near current states of affairs in the person. As definition of consciousness statement presents.

While arousal is the global state of responsiveness, awareness is the brain’s ability to perceive specific environmental stimuli in different domains, including visual, somatosensory, auditory, and interoceptive (e.g. visceral and body

.
While I have opinions on motivation, a primarily chemical mediated condition with analogs in thalamus and hypothalamus aspects of midbrain, most scientific study mediates against consideration of such affect in procedures precisely because they are emotion based.

Hope this puts me back on track in your view.

Oh as for the term 'ability' and whether postulation, dreaming, and planning are concerned an interactive brain includes interactivity with stored and tendency mechanisms found in such brain structures as Corpus Callosum and Cingulate gyrus.

These structures also intimately integrate with sense and motor processes as well as cortical and hindbrain systems where one finds points for engaging arousal and awareness and memory.

Details of these integrative activities need be considered by model supported by detail of fine experimental analysis of local interactions in target areas where such interactions seem relevant to the understanding of awareness. These experiments can run from genetic, to chemical, to work related (fMRI and EEG), to purely behavioral.

So if you go behind the headline statements of motivation and memory you'll find ample brain integration modes suited to processing those conscious modes you so relish.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok, if you're back to wakefulness status, we can try again to get relevant answers...

So, again, it's interesting what you say but, why is awareness defined here as "the brain’s ability to perceive" (specific environmental stimuli) rather than as perception itself, or something like that. Why do we need the word ability in there? Sure, consciousness presumably is an ability of the brain, but that's not the point. I think that having the ability to perceive X is not at all perceiving X. Any idea?

Also, I don't see here the case where we just think about something without attending to what's going on around us... Say, I am imagining meeting with a friend next Friday. This, I believe, qualifies as a conscious process but the case doesn't seem to appear in the extract you provided here. What do you think?
EB

 

[untermensche]

But we are examining things here, not accepting things.

The objective explanation has to account for the subjective experience or it is not an explanation. It has to account for more too but it has to explain ALL phenomena, even the subjective.

Or it is just pretending to be an explanation.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Thanks for your contribution.
EB

That is not noting anything.

It is ignoring it.

A scientific explanation of consciousness is an explanation of how it occurs.

And in so doing what it is objectively will be understood.

It does not need a definition to be understood.

Science looks for plausible models that fit gathered data. Not definitions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your opinion is duly noted.

Thanks for your contribution.
EB

That is not noting anything.

It is ignoring it.

A scientific explanation of consciousness is an explanation of how it occurs.

And in so doing what it is objectively will be understood.

It does not need a definition to be understood.

Science looks for plausible models that fit gathered data. Not definitions.

You must have missed the part in his OP where he said he is the sole arbiter of what is the right answer to his question. Don't feel bad, I didn't notice either.

 

[untermensche]

You must have missed the part in his OP where he said he is the sole arbiter of what is the right answer to his question. Don't feel bad, I didn't notice either.

Yes.

"For a scientific concept of consciousness."

That doesn't explain how subjective experience occurs.

Consciousness is something experienced.

And something that is experienced with unique abilities. Add things like practice and consciousness grows.

What is needed is an explanation for how it happens.

It is too many things to define.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your opinion is duly noted.

Thanks for your contribution.
EB

That is not noting anything.

It is ignoring it.

A scientific explanation of consciousness is an explanation of how it occurs.

And in so doing what it is objectively will be understood.

It does not need a definition to be understood.

Science looks for plausible models that fit gathered data. Not definitions.

Again, there are two concepts of consciousness, phenomenal (or subjective) consciousness and access (or objective) consciousness. Scientists decided early on to investigate access consciousness, for the obvious reason that it looked the only reasonable proposition. That's at least my understanding of the story.

So, I'm not sure what you are on about. What is your point in relation to the OP?

And if you disagree on the story as I presented it, please give me the names of those scientists you think have effectively investigated subjective or phenomenal consciousness. And, please, provide quotes to support your account.

And did any scientist provide any scientific explanation of qualia yet?
EB

 

[Underseer]

Ok, if you're back to wakefulness status, we can try again to get relevant answers...

So, again, it's interesting what you say but, why is awareness defined here as "the brain’s ability to perceive" (specific environmental stimuli) rather than as perception itself, or something like that. Why do we need the word ability in there? Sure, consciousness presumably is an ability of the brain, but that's not the point. I think that having the ability to perceive X is not at all perceiving X. Any idea?

Also, I don't see here the case where we just think about something without attending to what's going on around us... Say, I am imagining meeting with a friend next Friday. This, I believe, qualifies as a conscious process but the case doesn't seem to appear in the extract you provided here. What do you think?
EB

I see you're still trying to use arrogance as a substitute for arguments. Refusing to understand something and being insulting is no substitute for a good argument, not does it disguise the argument from ignorance fallacy you are using to dodge the burden of proof.

 

[untermensche]

Again, there are two concepts of consciousness

There is the experience of consciousness and there has to be some explanation for how the experience can occur.

The experience IS consciousness. That is what science has to explain.

phenomenal (or subjective) consciousness

In other words, consciousness.

access (or objective) consciousness

In other words, how consciousness happens.

Scientists decided early on to investigate access consciousness, for the obvious reason that it looked the only reasonable proposition. That's at least my understanding of the story.

Yes they started with the idea they would explain how conscious experience occurs, how consciousness happens.

But they found that to be harder than originally thought.

But they are still working, but have no understanding of how cells can generate conscious experience and something that experiences.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is the experience of consciousness and there has to be some explanation for how the experience can occur.

The experience IS consciousness. That is what science has to explain.

phenomenal (or subjective) consciousness

In other words, consciousness.

access (or objective) consciousness

In other words, how consciousness happens.

Scientists decided early on to investigate access consciousness, for the obvious reason that it looked the only reasonable proposition. That's at least my understanding of the story.

Yes they started with the idea they would explain how conscious experience occurs, how consciousness happens.

But they found that to be harder than originally thought.

But they are still working, but have no understanding of how cells can generate conscious experience and something that experiences.

I guess I have to repeat myself:

And if you disagree on the story as I presented it, please give me the names of those scientists you think have effectively investigated subjective or phenomenal consciousness. And, please, provide quotes to support your account.

And did any scientist provide any scientific explanation of qualia yet?
EB

So, who are the scientists doing what you say and where is the evidence of that?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Ok, if you're back to wakefulness status, we can try again to get relevant answers...

So, again, it's interesting what you say but, why is awareness defined here as "the brain’s ability to perceive" (specific environmental stimuli) rather than as perception itself, or something like that. Why do we need the word ability in there? Sure, consciousness presumably is an ability of the brain, but that's not the point. I think that having the ability to perceive X is not at all perceiving X. Any idea?

Also, I don't see here the case where we just think about something without attending to what's going on around us... Say, I am imagining meeting with a friend next Friday. This, I believe, qualifies as a conscious process but the case doesn't seem to appear in the extract you provided here. What do you think?
EB

Perceiving is what a human does. The ability to perceive is a capability that at least humans have.

As for your last criticism I tried to point out that the definition presented encapsulated memory, dreaming, and self reflection when I spoke of midbrain involvement in awareness.

 

[untermensche]

There is the experience of consciousness and there has to be some explanation for how the experience can occur.

The experience IS consciousness. That is what science has to explain.

phenomenal (or subjective) consciousness

In other words, consciousness.

access (or objective) consciousness

In other words, how consciousness happens.

Scientists decided early on to investigate access consciousness, for the obvious reason that it looked the only reasonable proposition. That's at least my understanding of the story.

Yes they started with the idea they would explain how conscious experience occurs, how consciousness happens.

But they found that to be harder than originally thought.

But they are still working, but have no understanding of how cells can generate conscious experience and something that experiences.

So, who are the scientists doing what you say and where is the evidence of that?
EB

That is not how it works.

YOU have to respond.

If you can.

All you do is dodge and avoid and pretend to know something.

What I wrote needs no support. It is self evident.