Consciousness is a Biological Problem

well yes dualism could be the case but we have no real way of knowing and if there is a mind substance, then I can't imagine it to be anything other than an omnipresent anima mundi that plays only the role of a passive mental medium for animals and, at some point, quite possibly even artificial machines

now if someone were to start another thread and ask the question 'is the source of consciousness biological?' i wonder what would happen...

---------- Post added 08-26-2009 at 09:10 PM ----------



it isnt a mind substance in my understanding of the word, but i guess it could be described that way-that thing i experience.

but above, you really gave a really good description of THAT...! my question to you is, can you see this anima mundi as being in human beings also? and rocks and plants etc? that is how i see it. and i definitely agree we can have no real way of knowing.

oops-off topic...

I don't know to be perfectly honest

that's why I don't want to speculate

I strongly feel that Consciousness is a biological problem, and one I hope we find a conclusive solution of Consciousness through empirical observation, but let me play Devil's advocate and propose a problem, as I am intrigued as how various people will respond to it.
'

This Frank Jackson's Mary's Room thought experiment and at first glance if you except Jackson's conclusion about whether Mary has learnt anymore, it seems to suggest there is a component of Consciousness that is not explainable by Scientific enquiry. I'm suspecting that the majority of replys we be that of 'thin materialism' stating that Mary would not learn anything new about the world after having stepped out of her Black and White Room. What do people think?

Metaphorically, one might say that we are stepping out of one room and into another.

The way I think of it is that the evolution of consciousness (or meta-consciousness as I see it) entails developing greater sensitivity to different aspects of the room (universe) that we are already in, as well as storing these learned skills for future use.

This manifests in two ways. 1) An evolving nervous system that is gradually growing more sensitive to its surround and 2) storing information about what it is learning.

Every human and every animal has different sensitivities to different aspects of the universe. Humans, may be more sensitive to their own selves than other forms of life. I do not know. But certainly different humans are more sensitive to their own behavior than others. And so on.

An artist being more sensitive to form, shapes, colors than maybe a construction worker who is more sensitive to tools of the trade. So as we evolve, meta-consciousness becomes more and more sensitive as it collects and processes more data. Meta-consciousness, in a way, is developing (creating) a nervous system as a way of evolving and understanding more about the universe (itself?).

The creativity part of human existence, I would say is part of the process of learning and evolving, as well as self-amusement.

Rich

Maybe I've missed the boat, but I'd like to offer my own definition of consciousness as one which we might use as a basis for discussion.

Consciousness (of an individual): the totality of experience of the individual at any given moment, including all sensations and all thoughts; everything, except those things which the individual does not at any given moment either experience or imagine, which things are unknown; the sum of everything which is known at any given moment.

By this definition, physical objects are included in consciousness. Or rather, 'physical objects' are revealed to be what they truly are, phenomenological just like dreams and emotions; i.e. when we say 'physical objects,' we aren't referring to objects which exist independently of our experience of them (though we claim we are-if we actually were referring to such 'real' objects, we would be referring to nothing, because we don't know, have never experienced, a 'real' object-because, by definition, it would exist independently of our experience of it). The old mind-body duality is dissolved as the mind is shown to be inclusive of the body; the phenomena which we once said were strictly mental is of the same kind as the phenomena which we once said was actual, outside the mind. they are both phenomenological; they both consist of experience. There is nothing we know we is not composed of experience.

If indeed there are 'real' physical objects behind our experience of 'physical objects,' then they, definition, exist independently of our experience of them and cannot be known to us. We can never get outside our own experience to see if there is anything beyond our experience, though of course we assume there is.

If the above is correct, and it seems to me (if we accept my definition of consciousness) that it is irrefutably so, then 'conscious is a biological problem' raises new questions. If in fact the concepts which constitute biology, i.e. the system of ideas to which we are actually referring when we say the word 'biology,' are a part of consciousness by virtue of the fact that they are experience, then how is it possible for biology to explain consciousness? Explanation requires a stepping-back of the explainer from the thing being explained. Explanation consists of something being defined in terms of something else. A thing cannot be explained in terms of itself. If there is nothing outside of consciousness to which we can actualy refer, including any of the sciences (which consist of thought and are therefore phenomenological and within consciousness), in terms of what could we define/explain consciousness? As Nietzsche said, 'an instrument cannot examine itself.'

Further clarification:
Specifically, a thing cannot be fully defined/explained/understood in terms of its own constituent parts because that definition/explanation/understanding would have to also explain those parts themselves, as they are a part of the whole thing and therefore, an explanation which does not account for them is incomplete. A definition which includes the term that it is supposed to be defining is tautological and not truly a definition.

I would like to ask all those who are more biologically inclined to consider this and than tell us what you think:

here you are passionately debating an issue that you have adopted as interesting enough to raise your ire in some cases.

May I just get you to try to think a little deeper than just what you've read in texts and ask yourself WHy you even have any interest in this.

If all of this gathering of knowledge is merely a matter of biological brainwork than how do you feel about the fact that it actually matters to you?

Is there not SOMETHING inside that makes you care about what you learn here or teach here? How can you say that all of life and creation is mere biology acting itself out, while at the same time something other than biological necessity causes you to be intrigued and curious about what is taking place on this board.

How can your interest in this board be a biological function? Isn't there something that you would consider bound to your consciousness that causes you to take an interest in this discussion? Or are you of the thinking that all of this is somehow the brain performing some biological function that is somehow pertinent to your survival.

Quite simple really. You are taking something and applying a feel good response and then sky rocketing it into some area where it must be special because I feel good about it. No, why? Because EVERYTHING you do is treated this way.

You have ultimately three perspectives on EVERYTHING you experience. What three am I talking about? Well you can either:

Like it
Hate it
or
Don't care either way or indifferent.

EVERYTHING gets treated this way. Do you like needles? Do you like alcohol? Do you like math? Do you like vegetables? Do you like reading Krumple's philosophy posts?

Some of your answers are "I like it", some of your answers are, "I don't like it." and some of your answers might be, "I don't really care."

But you are trying to surmise that since something is liked and we attach a value to it that it now for some reason becomes more than what it is. But it is not. Let me explain further for a moment.

Let's say we like torturing people. Well since you love to torture people you think it should be considered an honorable action? We should salute all people who torture others because it sets us apart from all those compassionate imbeciles who think being kind is better than torture.

So the very fact of attaching value to something makes consciousness, what? Divine?

i think it should be another thread...it is related of course, but i kept trying to compose an answer and went way off topic...

the best short comment i can make is that if mary herself were a robot, would she learn anything? how is it different for mary the robot or mary the person? will one of them learn something and the other not?

i see mary as experiencing something, and the learning comes from the experience. a robot may learn from some experiences, but in this case i cant imagine what. mary the human will learn something about herself-whether or not she likes red more than green, etc. and how colors affect her moods...

Exactly, there's no magic. The processes which generate curiosity are not essentially different from those that generate muscle contractions, or circulation.

Here is how I look at the whole amino acid force of life thing that KJ was talking about:

Let's say that there is a man building a castle out of lego blocks. The finished castle is a product of the work and the components that were needed to build it. BUT the man is not a lego castle or even a lego block. And even one of the lego blocks cannot be considered a castle by itself. The force behind the end product is not the end product and the blocks which were used to build it are not the end product.

Likewise the building blocks of life, and that mysterious force that resides within them is not life either. The mysterious building blocks of life are what combine to result in life. So to say that because an amino acid has the same force of life in it that a human does isnt an excuse to call it life, just as there is no excuse to call a lego block a castle.

The builder, whatever THAT is; the original FORCE behind all of these component parts, whatever the hell that is, this great Mystery behind life and creation, the universe, the Big Bang, evolution, God, whatever... this is what some of us are suggesting is the real answer to this consciousness question that you are quandering over.

If you want the real definition of consciousness it is found there.

My two cents worth of definition goes like this:

Mosy living things are aware of their environment at least to the degree that they must search it for sustenance. So awareness cannot be used to define consciousness in the sense of some inner mind connected to the brain. A person in a coma may not be aware of their environment and are artificially sustained and yet they are considered conscious to the degree that they are not dead. So being alive is not the way to define consciousness either.

Also there is the self aware aspect that people use to define it which separates us from the animals. But I would argue that those who suffer from retardation are self aware and in many cases quite capable of self preservation, but I would not say that they are as conscious of certain factors of life as those who are not suffering from retardation. So we see that there is also a degree of consciousness that must be considered when defining it. A dog knows it is a dog doesn't it? it certainly knows what a cat is, and a cat a mouse.

Consciousness is more than simply aware, and more than merely alive, and certainly distributed in varying degrees.

The consciousness that we are attempting to discuss is that inner source of thought that comes from somewhere within our own persons that some of us believe has to do with the brain, and others tend to leave a mystery and call it soul or spirit.

In reality what we choose to declare as the source of consciousness does not change its reality. What we all do know is that is individual. The one thing about consciousness that we can all agree on is that my consciousness belongs to me alone and you cannot cause me to think anything other than what I want to think. You cannot put thoughts into my mind that I do not want there. I am not conscious because of anything external, or because of anything that you are outputting toward me.

My definition of true consciousness is not self awareness, but self identity. And not just to the degree that I know my name, a dog knows its name. I am talking about knowing that my consciousness is something within me that makes me my own individual person. THAT is where consciousness leaps the gorge of biological function. Everyone has a brain and most of them are basically exactly the same. BUT we all have our own identities and utilize that brain individually as we choose, and as we are capable.

Consciousness then is being aware of your individual identity as separate and unique within the biological universe, and this therefore has nothing to do with brain material, or amino acids, or the firing of electrodes. It has to do with what we call the spirit of a man, external to but sustaining on the biological.

that something would be the ego-that is what makes people argue and be unkind to others. it is also meant to do the work of protecting the interest of the individual. however, i dont know if it is a part of consciousness...it must depend on the definition once again.

i can see being interested in the answers to these questions as a matter of natural evolution of the processes going on in the brain. considering these issues relate to more than philosophy, ethics and psychology-they permeate the most basic actions in our daily lives...they are essential to an individual's understanding of his environment and ultimately his self, as well as the growth and further complexity of the species.

and once again, why is this a problem for dualists? why must the issue of soul enter here? can it not exist on its own plane and consciousness as a biological process exist in the physical world? this always seems to be turned into the question is there a soul or not. if there is a soul, it is not biological! does anyone believe consciousness is the soul?

Appreciation is felt for your willingness to nudge the discussion into a slightly more formated schematic. I hope all will be willing to use this as a base definition for what we mean when we say consciousness (for starters).(1)



This, therefore, is primarily the first exercise before us, to provide arguments and demonstrate conditions which tend to lead towards whichever position we might hold. I most certainly hope that all are of such frame of mind to politely, maturely, and in a reasonable degree of scholarly air, debate, attack and defend positions, in an upbuilding manner. Also, ABC, I appreciate your suggestion to richrf. I too, therefore, will take his "meta-consciousness" (which he thereafter uses at least once) as being his argument for the source of awareness.



Yes, as you may have taken note of, in my little note immediately following that quote (here's a quick link back to that post), professor Slingerland presents the several sides of the classical' mind/body problem' quite fairly and equally. In the chapter from where that quote had come, there is also a exposition on why dualism matters, as well. As I had noted in my post, for an enriched, more psychologically matured, and more fully human society, it would behoove us to maintain our 'story telling' (kind a reminder of a Jung idea) and our abstract philosophizing, but to ground our practical, down to 'life & death'-like matters and world views today, in the understandings that practical, empirical experience is showing us--and his emphasis is on the neurosciences' advances in understanding how much of what, actually, is going on 'upstairs.'.



I agree, yet more than just 'feel,' I 'reason' that awareness has as a source, to such a high degree that all other unknowns are moot, brain--thus a biological matter it is.



This was working on Nagal's 'What is it like to be a bat' presentation (1974). It has been concluded by some (including Slingerland) that while (as folksy things usually go) the qualia concept has some air of intuitive appeal, it has been shown to be mere assertion or 'item of faith'-like in nature.

First of all, at the end of the day, a thought experiment is nothing more than simply that--thinking about imagined situations. While thought experiments are usually good tools to explain or demonstrate concepts, hypotheses, or thoughtful fancies, they are not tests of concrete things leading to obsevations in empirical manners, which, in turn, provide replicateable results through testing (and not merely repeating the thought experiment). Here, the true workings of brain, as best known at the moment (2009), have not been included (even what had been known in 1982, when that paper had come out [Philosophical Quarterly Vol 32, pp 127-136] were not included).

Taking Mary's brain to have normal build, except for the very possible circumstance that some re-wiring may have naturally occurred (assuming she had been born in that room, had grown up in that room, and had never been exposed to color at all [which is first of all an impossibility--people have colored eyes, hair, teeth, skin, and someone would have had to have raised her from infancy]), upon leaving the room, and having the various wave lengths 'srike' the blue, green, and red cones of the retinas, and their firing patterns activated (as would automatically happen) the signals would run their natural ventral and dorsal routes, and be processed pretty much normally (assuming a little re-wiring has occurred [which is normal]) meaning she would see color. It might not be translated into the cognitive acknowledgement areas as strongly as a person who had always been exposed to color all their lives, or had normal genetic-linked cone build, but it would be color that she'd see--not black and white.

Then, the question of whether that would mean that she would learn something might depend on what one thinks of when they say learn, but in the general sense of having had the experience of seeing color for the first time, it could reasonably be said that she has learned that there is such an experience, and thus, it would follow that we could generalize by saying that, 'yes, she has learned something new about the world outside the room.'

I am following your presentation, richrf, and after touching on some other points which are back-logged, I will put together the points of your entire line of thought and presentation, and ask questions and test them. I look forward to having a good discussion per above mentioned mode (my second paragraph).




1. The reason I say, 'for starters is because as we go, we may very well find that we'll have to polish that definition, so as to better refine it to what we observe about simple awareness.

Cellular debris is not life, a cell is life, but the difference between the two is not some mysterious force. There are certain processes, which can only occur through certain structures (a complete cell wall e.g. is needed for homostasis), which we have decided are the criteria for 'life.' Our definition of life is, however, arbitrary; how did we arrive at these particular criteria? Is there something magical about them? Are the chemical reactions which enable the formation of a protoplasmic membrane somehow fundementally different from other chemical reactions? No, our definition of life rests on certain criteria only because those are the criteria which apply to us. We maintain homeostasis, we reproduce, etc. We define that which is most like us as living, and that which is more dissimiliar as inert. In other words, the 'mysterous life force' is no more mysterious than the force which drives oxidation, or evaporation, or fusion. We simply value certain processes more because we have recognized that they are essential for our own existance. Humans have a long history of vainly assuming that they are exceptional with respect to the rest of the world, or a certain group of humans are exceptional over others.



I'm in complete agreement that the 'force' which drives everything is indeed very mysterious. Science does not explain why reactions occur, it merely notes that they occur, and under what conditions, so that we can predict and manipulate nature. However, in my view, there is no need to assume that there must be some force exterior to the world which is the cause of events in the world. There are just events. They don't have causes. The fact that we can ask a question, such as 'what drives a reaction?' doesn't mean that there is an answer. In the question there's the baseless assumption that something drives events, while that assumption is not supported by evidence of any kind. In fact, it cannot be supported by evidence; by definition, a force behind or beneath all events could never be observed or known. It is a logical phantasm, like the 'soul.' Things happen as they do because things are what they are and not other things. The world is the world, not another world. All is neccessity, and what you see is all; there's no man behind the curtain.



What determines personal identity? None of us would have the foggiest idea that we were individual with a unique identity, or that we existed at all, or, moreover, have any ideas at all (which are always reflective), if we did not have a sense of time, of past and future. In order to have an idea, one must reflect, and in order to reflect, there has to be something other than the present, visceral experience which is experienced in the present. One has to presently experience both the momentary sensations of being alive, and simulteeous memory of previous such moments; a thought is an application of such a memory to immediate sensation, or to another memory. It is the history of a being, as remembered, which is personal identity. Every thing has a history, and therefore, by your definition, everything is conscious. I would agree with that, with the obvious caveat that my consciousness is not of the same magnitude as that of a chicken, or a worm, or a granite block. The more complex the entity, i.e. the more complex are its interactions with the world, the more history there is; ergo, a greater quantity and more complicated memories are formed, and the entity is more self-aware.



The 'biological universe' exists only in our minds. If there is a 'real' physical world beyond and independent of our experience of it, we couldn't know about it, by definition. I agree that experience, conscious life, is seperate from the 'biological universe' or any other scientific world-view, but not in the same way that you are suggesting that they are different. I'd say that the biological universe is a part of experience, conscious life. Therefore, the two are not synonymous, but they are of the same sort: the phenomenological-experience sort. If there is a 'real' world which exists independently of our experience of it, it obviously does 'sustain' consciousness, in that consciousness is simply the experience of being a part of that world from the perspective of that part alone. And then consciousness is universal to all 'real' things.

The above statement IS forum gold.

I know posting this isn't really necessary and railroads the thread but it needs to be said other than clicking a thank you button.

Yes, I agree. But to put it in a different form, I would say that we are gathering information, processing information, storing information, and sharing information. Emotions would be a form of sharing as would physical creation. But there is no reason to break it down like this, since they can all be categorized under the general title of experiencing.




However, in order to give purpose to all this experiencing, I have also enfolded the concept of an evolving meta-consciousness that does not end at death but continues on through multiple physical lives, and the experiences build upon each other.



As a matter of practical everyday existence, we do share our experiences with other individuals (conscious bodies), in such a way that we do get outside of our own experiences. Now there are humans whose experiences can be so much out of the norm that we call them crazy. However, it is possible that they are sharing with us experiences that are so far beyond our own sensory capacity that we are simply unable to comprehend what they are suggesting.



Another issue that comes to mind, is that if we are all evolved from the same cells at the beginning, then shouldn't everything have the same evolved with the same consciousness? Animals, insects, reptiles, fish, etc. If not, then when did consciousness enter into the game and why only for humans?

---------- Post added 08-26-2009 at 10:07 PM ----------



Yes, this is my point of view. Of course, someone can come along and claim that the whole thing magically emanates out of brain material. And my response is that brain material magically emanates out of meta-consciousness.

My world view, is that meta-consciousness is a certain type of willful motion that can create and destroy matter in the same way we can mold ceramics. It is enfolded into matter and matter unfolds into it. But we are playing with the same thing.

For me, it comes back to first cause. What got everything going to begin with? What started the motion, or as with the metaphor of the ceramics, what started the wheels turning? That willful motion to begin experiencing and creating. For me, this is the mystery.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-26-2009 at 10:20 PM ----------



I think it is unnecessary to stop the exploration at this point. I believe there are clues.



I would say it is a manifestation of the meta-consciousness.



Here we differ markedly. I would say that the biological universe is the mechanism for the meta-consciousness to explore. It is literally designed to do that: sense, process, store, react, create, etc. As humans may build a computer, the meta-consciousness builds the biological universe. However, the stuff is all the same. It is just two sides of the same coin.

The reason that I adopt this viewpoint is because it gives clear purpose to existence: exploration and creation for the purpose of self-amusement.

Rich

Thanks for joining in and offering a definition--albeit a counter definition. The following is what comes to mind having studied that a bit:

[indent]Since it might be better to hold a definition for consciousness alone, at first, and then work on determining the source[s] of consciousness, I would tend to think that it would be better to leave the delimiting 'of an individual' out--since that would surely be a source, rather than just the phenomenon. Then, looking over the main predicate (in black) I question what value there would be in having experience and not being aware of having had that experience? Additionally, how can the thinking process (thoughts) occur without awareness--since it is most obvious in the real, practical world that unless there is awareness of memory storage (including language things) it can hardly be imagined that associative processing (as thought basically is) can occur? Then, as a human (for now) is born with a capacity for awareness, they operate, and through this operation (activity) acquire experience and sensation--which capacity, as is well demonstrated through research and case studies in the neurosciences, is initially innately hard-wired in the brain. Therefore, once again, I argue that the common denominator is awareness.

The green colored area, and the blue colored area, simply appear to be emphasizing that consciousness cannot hold any content of what has not been experienced or thought of up to the very moment of each moment as time passes. The final portion of the black area, from the first of the definition, emphasizes once again that 'up to the moment total.' It cannot escape me, I must press, that we have to have awareness to be able to say that we know of something. Therefore all-in-all, I argue that we are better off with that simple, bare minimum of a definition for consciousness, namely, awareness. Do you feel, BrightNoon, there is room to start off, at least, (1) by saying that by consciousness, we mean awareness?[/indent]

There are other points which I will touch on (if I don't forget) later on, but I hope to at least hear from you on this much of my argument for the bare minimum definition for starters.



1. As mentioned in my previous post, I reason that we can offer expansions on that bare minimum as arguments proceed. Also, in the end, we may not all agree on a single definition of consciousness, nor on the source of consciousness, but all agreeing (or not) is not really the main point of this activity (not as I see it, at least) because the main point is to present, argue, and discuss, to the best of our abilities in an organized and fairly formated mode.

First, I just have to state the obvious and say that reality doesn't require a purpose; it's not missing something if it has no purpose. We as humans just feel the need to give it one, and maybe we have to do this for the purpose of survival. Some people, myself included, seem quite able to function knowing that there is no ultimate purpose for that functioning, and then some people stop eating, stay in bed all day, and shrivel up into the walking dead. I'm thinking you didn't mean that there is an absolute, objective purpose, but rather that you, in your philosophical system, are gving it one. If that's the case, I understand; every system is based on some arbitrary premises and goals. There is no wrong system, so long as it is internally coherent and not contradictory. That's what I love about philosophy: blank canvass.

Anyway, I like the idea of meta-consciousness evolving from consciousness. I too see everything on an infinite continuum, from the most primitive sort of visceral sensation without reflection and thought, through our own state of complex thought, on to some unimaginable higher order of meta-thought, and so on. However, are you saying that this could happen in some cases, or that it does in fact always occur on the 'death' (destruction of the 'real' entity) of the consciousness? If the latter, I have to disagree. As I've said in earlier posts, in my view, consciousness is direct result (not a cause) of complex structure of some kind which allows for complex interaction of the entity in question with the world. If that 'real' (existing independently of our perception of it) structure becomes damaged, or dissolves altogether, such that it can no longer perform its function of complex reaction, then the associated consciousness dissapears as well. A brain in a grave no longer produces any consciousness becuase its structure has broken down such that it no longer enables reactions with the environment. Certainly though, in some cases (pretty rare I imagine), the destruction of a complex structure and its associated consciousness might lead to the formation of an even more complex structure and higher consciousness. But then, that old structure can't have been really destroyed, it must have been appropriated by another structure, enlisted in its service, so to speak.

First, let me say that, when I talk about the external world (existing independently of our experience of it), I refuse to use scientific terms. I try ot use the least anthrogenic terms as possible. There can be no true description of the external world, but it can be less false if only because every term is false, and I'll use less terms. And in any case, I see that external world as, not governed by laws, but ruled by absolute, brute force. As Pathfinder brought up the idea of a force underlying all things and causing all events, I might say that the basic cause of the world's dynamic is always the will to power, as Nietzsche said. Let me qualify that though, as I ciriticex P.F. for making such a claim. I'm not literally saying that there is, in everything in the external world, a conscious will to achieve power, nor am I saying that there is actually a force underlying all events which is seperate from those events; I'm just giving a name to the observed tendency of things to 'battle' with one another. The pre-socratics had an idea like this as well. They hypothesized that the world consisted of several basic, indivisable elements, such as earth, wind, fire and air (no, not the seventies band..), and that these basic elements constantly vied with each other for supremacy, and that the result of their warring was all the events in the world; i.e. through their competition, they came into different relationships to one another (different ratios, densities, etc.), thus creating all the things in the world which we see, which are composed on those basic elements in differing those relations to one another: e.g. sometimes fire dominant, sometimes wind, etc. So, I'm suggesting something similiar, except without any specific substances, and without reference to substance at all actually. I just want to try to define the external world (as I imagine it to be of course, I can't really know) purely in terms of this dynamic of power. For example, instead of explaining a game of pool in terms of velocity, elasticity, mass, etc., I would like to be able to define it in terms of one entity becoming dominant or inferior (in power, which means influence or effect) relative the others.

So, back to the main point; a complex structure generating consciousness cannot become a more complex structure generating meta-consciousness if it is actually destroyed, and loses its ability to interact in complex ways with the world. If that structure is appropriated by, enlisted into the service of, a stronger, more influential, more dominant, other entity, without being destroyed, it will become a part of a new entity, which as a whole is more complex and generates a higher sort of consciousness. That other, more dominant element which forced the first structure into its own system and sphere of inflluence is still dominant; it used its strength to control other entities, which make the whole new entity more powerful than the one dominant entity could hope to be on its own. The same thing is easily observed in any social interaction. A gangster might be pretty tough and pretty successful at robbing people, but if he uses his strength instead to build a group of other, lesser gangsters around himself, the new unit of which he is the head, is more powerful than he could ever be alone.



Do you mean that we are able to communicate our individual experiences to others, via symbols (writing, speech, etc.), such that the other person is stimulated to experience something similiar and thus partially understand, or do you mean that we actually share the individual experience itself? The former obviously happens. If write 'the big tree is falling down' you can picture a big tree falling down in your mind, but it's very likely not the same image I am seeing in my mind, and if it is, that's purely a coincidence. As for the latter, I don't see how that could happen. Experience can only be individual, because experience is being a part of the world and seeing the rest through that part; it is an entity seeing the world through itself. If that maxim is correct, and of course that's debatable, then it follows that no two seperate entities can have the same experience, or somehow directly transmit experience to one another, as they would have to literally BE the other so that they could see the world through that other. And if one entity did become another and thereby become able to see the world through that other entity, i.e. from its perpsective, then the first entity is no longer the first entity! And it wouldn't be seeing through someone else's eyes, but rather through it's own. So I don't see how entities can directly share individual experience.



I wish I knew more about the details of biological evolution, but my answer is that very-very-very-complex structure can only arise from very-very-complex structure, which can only arise from very-complex structure, which can only arise from complex structure, and so on ad infinitum. In other words, there had to be a progression, complexity couldn't just appear all at once from extreme simplicity. This relates nicely with what I was saying above about defining events in the world in terms of the dynamics of power. As weaker entities (less complex) either battle and eliminate the weakest in a darwinian process, or begin to cooperate to form new, larger, more complex entities, we begin to see increasingly influential and dominant, and complex (and so more conscious), entities. Why is it only humans? We are at the avante garde, for now anyway. History isn't over and something more complex might yet stampt us out, co-opt us, or we might evolve given enough time. If Homo Erectus could have thought about such issues, I'm sure he would have asked, 'why is homo erectus' the only conscious entity? At any moment in history, there is always one sort of entity, or actually just one, which is the most advanaced, just because it would be really improbably for all entities in the universe to ever be competely equal in complexity. We happen to be it right now...as far as we know.

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 01:22 AM ----------



That's quite right, but aren't we all in agreement that consciousness is a phenomena only experienced by individuals? Does someone hold that groups of individuals have a consciousness, rather than several? If we were to say that consciousness is the totality of experience, but exclude any mention of the individual, for whom is it experience? Can experience just exist, and not be experienced by someone? I see your point and theoretically it would be preferable to seperate the epistemology form the ontology, but in this case, the two are so solely linked that I don't think it's possible, unless we remove any mention of experience from the definition altogether, which would be absurd in my mind-the two, even in common parlance are, if not synonymous, very much related. If I say 'in my consciousness, there is an image of an apple' and 'in my mind, I experience the image of an apple' aren't I saying the same thing?



None whatsoever. All of my definitions are synonymous, they could each stand on their own. The idea was to provide several versions in the event that one of them is confusingly written, and so that there isn't misinterpretation; i.e. its pretty unlikely that each line would be mininterpreted in the same way. Anyway, I guess I failed eh? What I was trying to express is the following; consciousness consists of everything that the individual experiences, but none of that which he does not experience, whatever that might be (it is unknown by definition because it is not experienced: i.e. no thought or sensation of/about it). In other words, what is known comprises consciousness, and what it not known (and we don't know what that might be of course) is not part of consciousness; if it were, it would be known.



I would competely agree. The terms I use, sensation and thought, I'm using in a very specialized sense, because I've developed them for use in a certain system that I'm trying to work out. They refer to what anyone would ordinarily think they refer to, but they are not related to one another as they are in ordinary usage. They are not opposites or different kinds. As I'm using the terms sensation and thought, the two are exactly of the same kind (phenomenological, i.e. experienced), one is not mental and the other bodily; they do not 'exist' in different 'places.' There is no duality. Thought is understood as a complex of sensations. The most primitive thought is a sensation defined in terms of another sensation. As we travel along the continuum toward greater complexity, we see a hierarchical progression; thought defined in terms of thought, creating meta-thought; then meta thought defined in terms of meta-thought, creating meta-meta-thought, etc. And so sensation is the basis for thought, and the two differ only by degree of complexity, not in any essential way.

So, to get to your point, I would agree with your description of how a young baby develops the ability to think as a result of integrating sensations into memory, eventually forming more compex thoughts, such as the ability to reflect, the sense of time, basic logic, symbols, etc., in a progression as sensation builds on sensation and schematic thoughts (complexes of accumulated sensation which are constantly present as fixed schema in the present experience, by which that present experience (visceral sensation) is evaluated) develop.

Something that is very confusing in my argument, but which is really vital to understand the whole system, is the idea that thought should be considered timeless or less bound to time, while sensation is more bound to time; this is due to the fact that what we consider the present is defined by visceral sensation; 'present' is when any given sensation, or set of sensations occuring simulteineously, is more significant relative the accumulated memories of previous sensations than it will ever be again. As it is 'pushed back,' so to speak, by newly arriving visceral sensation, and as it becomes related with other old sensations (memories), it becomes less bound the present. And so, the point is that, the basic visceral sensations, which define the present, are not alone in the present. They mark the present, but in any given moment, there are also higher order complexes of sensation (thoughts) being experienced as well. This coexistance of visceral sensation and various tiers of thought allows for the analsys of the present (as when a 'decision is made') in terms of fixed ideas which are not at the mercy of present conditions: reasoning.

So, this is the language in which I'd describe the baby's mental development. I don't have a place for the formal term 'awareness.' To me that seems redundant. If I've already defined sensation and thought as the content of experience, then oboviously to experience one or the other a person must have awareness of them. If you mean 'awareness' in contrast to self-awareness, i.e. as a neccessary prelude to self-awareness, then I would agree with that concept. First, an entity must be aware (I would say, 'must experience sensation'), and then, after a period of being aware (accumulating sensations, which develop into more and more fixed schematic thought), that entity can reflect upon its own condition of awareness (evaluate the present visceral experience in terms of something not present-'step back' from the present to judge it) and become self-aware. And like everything else, self-awareness isn't an absolute; some entities may be more or less self-conscious than others.



Yes, I would say that some experience (the image of a firetruck e.g.) which once was visceral sensation, then became a memory of that sensation (i.e. a thought), but presently has vanished and is no longer being experienced is, for so long as it continues ot not be experienced, not a part of consciousness. I think of consciousness as a constantly changing phenomenon, composed of a series of moments. but it could just as easily be thought of as a whole, from birth to death of the person in question. I suppose it's arbitrary which way we think of it.



But awareness of what? One cannot simply 'be aware,' in the same way that one cannot just see, or just hear. Never has anyone seen, heard, or been aware, and not also seen something, heard something, and been aware of something. What is that soemthing? We can't go so far as to say that they are seeing 'real' things, like a house, a bird, etc., as that brings up further problems; we can only say that they are seeing visual sensuations/thoughts, hearing auditory sensations/thoughts, aware of some kind of sensation/thought, as opposed to any 'real' thing which might exist outside and independently of the sensation of it. I say that they experience sensation or thought, meaning appearance, not any 'reality' which may exist outside and independent of our experience of it. So, I would happily accept a definition which stated that consciousness is the total awareness of sensation and/or thought. But that, in effect, is the same as saying 'consciousness is the sum of all experience of sensation and thought.'

Thanks for getting back on that BrightNoon. I do appreciate it. While I'll spend some more time going over some of the detail of your above presentation, I do see what I would say are very weak points in it.

Anyhow, I do wish to temporarily remain focused on getting a starting point here, and the definition of 'awareness' is most fitting--as best I can see. This is for starters, so we don't need to think about the object of awareness . . . we only need to start with brute awareness as being what we mean when we say consciousness...that's it. We don't want to complicate it at first, so we don't need to think about 'self awareness' even. Again, just plain ole, simple, raw awareness.

Also, by the way, usually when the word individual is used by itself, it is referring to a human being, and at this point in our trying to get agreement on a starting point, that bare minimum, we don't want to ascribe awareness to a source of awareness yet--human or animal.

I don't know why I didn't think of checking the forward of the two volume set The Encylopedia of Consciousness which just came out this past March. (I paid some 400 bucks for 'em, so I'd best use them), but it seems to give a green light to the idea of our bare minimum definition here. The Editor-in-Chief (professor William P. Banks) mentions this towards the ending of his preface for the set:



Therefore by agreeing to start with allowing the word consciousness to be used as meaning, in the brute, bare minimum, awareness, we do have backing by others in the field. We can expand on that definition as we go.

forgive the partial quote, it was only to save space.
pathfinder i disagree with you on certain details. people can be made to think thoughts or beliefs that originate outside their heads-i.e., brainwashing, propaganda, hypnotism. even if it were not so, how would that prove your point?
the ego is what causes people to believe they are a unique individual. the ego creates what is believed to be identity, which in truth i no more than the sum of experience. the ego must also have biological makeup-it is a means of protecting the organism from extinction as well as group and species, which also have identities for ego purpose.
if spirit exists, no physical evidence is possible. why should this thread be concerned with soul or spirit? it would not be biological.
consciousness is awareness is perception, which occurs through the senses we are familiar with and any others we may be endowed with and have yet to discover. self awareness need not be a requisite for consciousness. a rock is conscious inasmuch as its senses allow. a cell or insect or plant is as conscious as it is able.


if the ego generates the illusion of separateness, it should be possible to locate the area in the brain that is responsible for what the ego does. there have been a few rare people who were able to see beyond their ego. can there be instances of brain damage, or malfunction or malformation from biological causes that would cause the ego not to perform?
and finally, it is the ego that causes people to fiercely cling to and defend beliefs and concepts, to argue, to insult and belittle, to want to indoctrinate-not the spirit. why would these things matter to the soul, which by its very nature would be unchangeable? ego fights to maintain separateness while spirit would be best served by unity.