The Problem of Consciousness

@BrightNoon,

KaseiJin;89519 wrote:

Third person experience is observable.

How, honestly, can you observe an experience? You can observe someone having an experience but the best you can say is, I wonder what that would be like? You can record people's experiences - writers often do that. But at best you have descriptions of experience. Experience must be in the first person, which is why Behavioural Science and Daniel Dennett always must insist that it should not be considered in their desciptions of behaviour and consciousness, respectively.

Incidentally KJ I agree with you on something (oh happy day) - I think the solipsist position is untenable. It arises from the illusion that 'I exist' apart from or separate from reality. It is not possible to feel that 'mine is the only consciousness' if you realise that consciousness is not yours, which it cannot be, because it exists prior to individuation. (Tricky point, I know.)

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 12:45 PM ----------

and again, this doesn't negate the idea of objective study of consciousness and scientific analysis of neurological functioning. It is a different perspective on the matter. Obviously if we want to understand the mechanisms of consciousness and how the brain works we need to study it objectively. I just keep saying that this can't be said to be the only perspective and we loose something very important if we say it is.

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 12:49 PM ----------

because experience is always a first-person perspective, in contrast to objective knowledge which is always transitive (i.e. requires an object).

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;89519 wrote:

I argue that for BrightNoon to be able to suppliment enough hard data on his numbers four and five (the more obvious kingpins behind his demand) to more clearly substantiate them, he will have to provide reason for thinking so, and he will have to provide empirical data (evidence) both supporting that and dislodging evidence to the contrary.

... being that I disagree with BrightNoon in certain respects, I think this will be my last post that guesses at his position on this ... that being said, it is not controversial that phenomenology is not currently a science - so again, if scientific data is all that can be talked about here, can this conversation really ever get off the ground? ... as well, it is pretty well established in the philosophy of science that certain assumptive beliefs must be held about the practice of science (one being that it can in fact be practiced - i.e., that there is a physical and intelligible world out there beyond 1st person experience) ... so somehow it doesn't sound to me like BrightNoon is the one who needs to do the "dislodging" here Smile

...

---------- Post added 09-10-2009 at 08:19 PM ----------

KaseiJin;89519 wrote:

... and it is demonstrateable to a high degree as being based on the matter of having a brain--irrespective of any phenomenological explorations--and therefore, the basis of consciousness is arugably the underlying, and most chronologically first, basement starting point in any discussion on consciousness.

... there I would have to disagree ... that seems to me like saying that the first basement starting point in any discussion on tennis is the tennis ball ... because tennis is demonstrable to a high degree as being based on the matter of having a tennis ball Smile

<-- (is this my brain as a tennis ball?) ... and wouldn't such a discussion of tennis from the ball point of view necessarily miss some important aspects of tennis? (back to the sages and the elephant again) ...

EDIT: actually, it may be worse than that ... the brain is involved not only in conscious activities, but also subconscious activities, perception, action, reflex, and so on and so on ... so when you start with a pile of neurological data, how do you sort out what's related to what? ... and what if you get the relationships wrong? - do you start attributing things to consciousness that aren't really part of consciousness?

---------- Post added 09-10-2009 at 08:49 PM ----------

jeeprs;89523 wrote:

You can observe someone having an experience but the best you can say is, I wonder what that would be like? You can record people's experiences - writers often do that. But at best you have descriptions of experience. Experience

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 12:45 PM ----------

and again, this doesn't negate the idea of objective study of consciousness and scientific analysis of neurological functioning. It is a different perspective on the matter. Obviously if we want to understand the mechanisms of consciousness and how the brain works we need to study it objectively. I just keep saying that this can't be said to be the only perspective and we loose something very important if we say it is.

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 12:49 PM ----------

because experience is always a first-person perspective, in contrast to objective knowledge which is always transitive (i.e. requires an object).

... there you go, traveling in time again - you know what your mother told you about that! Smile

...

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89497 wrote:

I wonder if it is worth mentioning the acquisition of donor heart traits by transplant recipients. (Look for article of that name in the index and click on the .PDF suffix at right to download. This is also from the very interesting Antimatters Journal, by the way.)

This article describes 10 documented cases where very specific personality characteristics of heart donors were acquired by the transplant recipients. This amounted to many personality traits, acquisition of new characteristics like love for art or classical music, change in sexual orientation, and many other shifts in the individual's outlook and attitudes. (It is an extremely poignant article in many places.)

It does seem to indicate that 'the heart' is more involved in creating the personality - dare I say 'the consciousness'? - than anyone would normally consider. And it this is the case, then how can you say 'consciousness is the output of the brain?' And - where do you draw the line?

I read the wrong article on the link you provided first, the one entitled "Memory Without a Trace" Memory Without a Trace | Braude | AntiMatters

This one argues that the article on donor shared traits is incoherent nonsense. They are from the same journal. Who are we to believe?

I'm afraid I'll have to go with the incoherent nonsense school, myself, considering the lack of anything other than anecdotal evidence (And not much at that. Ten cases out of how many total transplants over what period of time? The article doesn't say. Suffice to say, that statistically speaking I'd still keep this filed under Coincidental Anomalies, but even then only if I'm feeling charitable). And why just the heart as this organ of memory? According to OrganDonor.gov, about 2000 heart transplants are performed each year, compared to about 14,000 kidney transplants. Where are the reports of acquired donor traits among kidney recipients? And what of the future of Xenotransplantation?

The gay girl "turned straight" (awesome news in that it offers hope that homosexuality can somehow be "fixed") by her heart transplant struck me as particularly odious example of the emotionally manipulative tendencies of the purveyors of the paranormal. The heart, while an excellent metaphor for many positive human traits, is just a big muscle, and anyone who argues otherwise is not using their brain for its intended purpose.

Now here's Bob with the weather . . .

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Conscious of the cold?

There used to be a man that lived on our street who was somewhat mentally challenged. He would go out early in the day and walk for miles throughout town and return later in the evening. I have seen him often walking as afar as 20 miles away. He would never take a ride.

The strange thing about this character was the biological disorder that he had. He did NOT suffer the cold. I live on Canada's east coast where the winters can get extremely frigid. This man wore nothing but a sleeveless tank top and a pair of shorts year round. On the coldest days when anyone else would have froze to death he would be out walking down the road in a tanktop and shorts and was never damaged by frostbite.

It was said that he had some sort of a nerve condition where he could not sense the cold and also where his skin did not suffer the damage that it should have being exposed like that.

I do not know the exact details of this condition but I have observed it first hand many many times and was left in amazement by what I was seeing.

How do the steadfast laws of biology answer to unexplainable phenomena such as this?

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I have no particular interest in whether it proves anything, but I found it interesting, and, as I said, poignant. The other noteworthy fact is that it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Should anyone do the research - they might have already - surely it would be possible to come up with a pretty definitive answer yay or nay.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

anyone notice how tick tock post 183 saguayed perfectly into mine? lol

BTW its always chilly in this thread!

---------- Post added 09-11-2009 at 06:32 AM ----------

jeeprs;89566 wrote:

I have no particular interest in whether it proves anything, but I found it interesting, and, as I said, poignant. The other noteworthy fact is that it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Should anyone do the research - they might have already - surely it would be possible to come up with a pretty definitive answer yay or nay.

which post wasa this in respponse to jeeps?

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;89527 wrote:

... I think this will be my last post that guesses at his position on this ...

Hats off for your effort to follow through there, paulhanke. I, neither, will push it further on this particular thread. I do think portions of your comments there have room for some polishing and adjustment, and that your analogy regarding tennis is off, but will let that go; for here and now.

jeeprs;89523 wrote:

How, honestly, can you observe an experience?

That has already been demonstrated, actually. . . why do you ask? (or is this only a rhetorical question?

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;89566 wrote:

I have no particular interest in whether it proves anything, but I found it interesting, and, as I said, poignant. The other noteworthy fact is that it is a falsifiable hypothesis. Should anyone do the research - they might have already - surely it would be possible to come up with a pretty definitive answer yay or nay.

sure it's a fascinating subject.i would have to say that other organs should also have the same effect, not only the heart. is there even one story of that happening after a liver transplant? maybe there is something in it or it is just superstition. certain ancient traditions require a fingernail cutting or lock of hair of the person they are going to cast a spell on or try to heal. maybe there is some physical cause-memory in the dna, who knows.

but i prefer to think of it along the lines of my own worldview-that all is one anyway, and we can know as much about anyone else in the world whether we have never met them or have not had any transplant. all we need is to have the sensory functions operating that can bring their attributes, thoughts, memories, etc into our field of awareness. i believe that would be a viable explanation for almost every unaccounted for (and unaccepted) phenomenon in the world today, i.e. telepathy, previous lives, you name it. but because there was a heart transplant and the donor is the one who received the experience that is considered to be the explanation.

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;89603 wrote:

That has already been demonstrated, actually. . . why do you ask? (or is this only a rhetorical question?

Are we talking about mind-reading or something?

I will offer $10,000 to anyone that can look at me or put a probe into me and tell me what I am experiencing at that moment.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;89605 wrote:

put a probe into me and tell me what I am experiencing at that moment.
Rich

Discomfort, perhaps?

2 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;89615 wrote:

Discomfort, perhaps?

:lol:Wrong. Guess again.

Edit: As I thought about this, it does demonstrate how the object and subject experiences do get entangled. A play on the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;89618 wrote:

:lol:Wrong. Guess again.

Edit: As I thought about this, it does demonstrate how the object and subject experiences do get entangled. A play on the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Physics.

Rich

What a delightfully Deconstructionist way to view what I thought was just a simple joke! I hope I can restrain myself from making some sort of crude Freudian remark about an entangled probe . . .

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;89621 wrote:

What a delightfully Deconstructionist way to view what I thought was just a simple joke! I hope I can restrain myself from making some sort of crude Freudian remark about an entangled probe . . .

Well that is physics and biology for you.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

An interesting quote appearing in this week's Economist, from Dr. Zierath, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, who is studying genes and has found that "the same gene can be expressed differently in different people - or at different times during an individual's life."

She says: "we are not victims of our genes. If anything, our genes are victims of us."

She is referring to the lifestyle choices we make including exercise and diet. What is us?

Rich

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;89603 wrote:

That has already been demonstrated, actually. . . why do you ask? (or is this only a rhetorical question?

No it was a real question. Where was it demonstrated (I mean, if it was some of the earlier posts in this thread, please provide reference...thanks)

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 08:26 PM ----------

TickTockMan;89545 wrote:

The heart, while an excellent metaphor for many positive human traits, is just a big muscle, and anyone who argues otherwise is not using their brain for its intended purpose.

You're sure about that? I really don't think that can be established. I believe you think, feel, know and experience with your body, not just the brain. I certainly accept the brain is responsible for conscious thought, but thought itself is located in a process of subconscious and unconscious processes. We have a whole 'stance' or fundamental attitude towards the world, each other. this is expressed in a number of unconscious and somatic processes including the way we move, speak, and so on. So I really don't think it is possible to draw a line between the head and the heart and say the head thinks and the heart just sends blood around. That is an intellectual abstraction.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Well, jeeprs, I'm a bit at a loss here in what to do here. I mean, you have three times, in very specifically expressed terms, told me that you were not going to discuss the topic anymore; and yet you keep coming back. When I have worked at explanations in order to try to get an understanding across, in this general brain/consciousness/mind field, you have (and possibly in not so contemplative a mode?) spedifically stated that you didn't 'understand,' or that my words 'were saying nothing.'

As I had said in my #15, and had been holding to up to my #72 (which I had posted for information), I will continue with my presentation mainly on the original thread. I may point out some things from time to time here, on this thread, and I am always willing to talk with you about things related to, or involved with, this field, but I'd hope that you'd rein in your emotionalness--if you are really interested in debating and discussing it.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I know KJ, I keep meaning to turn to other topics but am still subscribed to this one, and get emailed about it, and then some thought arises, and I can't help entering a comment. No further action required on your part, KJ, thanks, I think I will unsubscribe to both these threads, I have made the points I wanted to make, and asked the questions I wanted to ask, I think I can contribute more usefully elsewhere on the forum.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;87136 wrote:

For the purpose of debate in this thread, consciousness will henceforth be defined as follows.

While I will conform to the definition of consciousness as "the sum of all experience", I will also add that that definition is quite ambiguous. For instance, I would interpret "the sum of all experience" as that which I am currently experiencing. Whether it be my perception of "real, physical" things or my memory of said things, or even my feelings or fantasies of these real things (real things as that which is generally excepted as "being in front of me as an actual existing object or the potential of being a real, existing object). It has been argued that one also perceives "essences" of objects (read: Husserl)

However, my argument here is against your definition of consciousness. I currently involved in working out the text of Husserl's Ideas I. In it there is the basic principle of "intentionality", not an idea coined by him, but one that relies on.

Intentionality is our conscious relationship to the objects of experience (be they "real" objects or "essences" of real individual things). Consciousness is always consciousness-of something. Thus there is always a correlation between the act of conscioussness and the content of that act. For, there can be no act without content, nor content without an act. This correlation is fundamental anything and everything that we experience (ooh, Experience is such a heavy word. It's impossible to talk about experience without giving a full defense of one's idea of what experience is.).

So, what is the relationship between consciousness and the real world: In order to experience the 'real world', the objects of the real world have to be correlated with an act of the consciousness of the individual person having that experience.

In answer to question 2:

Quote:

Why do we make that assumption, namely, that there is something 'real' which we experience the sensation of.

We shouldn't make that assumption. When any philosophy does, that assumption immediately undermines their entire philosophy. Why? Because it is an assumption.

Quote:

, when all we actually experience is the sense itself

Hefty claim. How can you experience "the sense itself" when sensing requires an act and content? Experience "the sense itself" would be experiencing the sense of seeing, not what is seen.

[p.s. I didn't proof read this, I must be too lazy. Oh, and I apologize is this, or something similar, has already been said]

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

de Silentio;93680 wrote:

In answer to question 2:

We shouldn't make that assumption. When any philosophy does, that assumption immediately undermines their entire philosophy. Why? Because it is an assumption.

... but doesn't the phenomenological concept of intersubjectivity imply the existence of something beyond one's self? - i.e., the experiencing of an object as another subject like yourself, and the ability for you to intend (in the absent sense) the perceptual profiles of an object that that subject is experiencing based upon the perceptual profiles of that same object as you yourself are intending it (in the present sense)? ...

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;87792 wrote:

Well BCI's do just that. Although, they use EEG I believe but still the same concept. It seems like an implication (correct me if Im wrong) that you are questioning whether or not our mapping of the brain has epistemic justification? (i.e. that when your occipital lobe fires doesnt mean you are having a visual experience) Because if that is the case I can show mounds of examples and reference you to my OP in the other thread.

Brain imaging techniques cannot read minds. They can be used to make somewhat reliable predictions about a person's general emotional or mental state, but no, you can't just hook someone up and see their thoughts. :eek:

1 Reply

The Problem of Consciousness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know