Consciousness is a Biological Problem

there were a few regulars to this thread that were asking to open a new thread which would tol;erate the metaphysical accounting. Those posts can be seen within the last couple of pages.

I was just following up on that.

If you want to continue this thread it does not matter to me one way or the other.

Well as far as definitions go, I'm sticking with my original assertion that consciousness be defined as subjective experience.

Well folks, the vote closure point has passed now, by several minutes. There were 3 votes for number one, 0 (or possibly 1) for number two, and 3 votes for number three. My vote was a 'tie-breaking swing vote' so in the event of a tie, it would swing; it therefore goes to number 3, so number 3 is the winner there. . . . HOWEVER . . .




I think we will all agree that there is now an imperative to adhere to the definition of consciousness that Kielicious, the thread's OP, has put forth. I think it fair, reasonable and mature for us all to acknowledge that for the purpose of this thread, when we say consciousness, we mean as a foundational basis, subjective experience. I accept that, and will go forward with my presentation on that foundation.

damn-why didnt i think of that? i cant believe i missed that, and i remember kielicious posting something along the lines of what his definition would be but i couldnt get up the ambition to go find it. subjective experience says exactly what i was thinking when we were discussing 'the sum of all experience'

this will give me something to look for that is not a biological problem, and i will be more than happy to be rebutted!

subjective experience-so simple and all encompassing! i have some thinking to do...

So, what is the definition of 'subjective experience'?

Let me rephrase this question.

What does experience in the subjective sense mean?

Does this mean experience stored as memory in the brain or consciousness based upon anything that the senses are subjected to?

As a basic definition, I take it to mean the latter, and I am happy with that. We are all then free to discuss whether consciousness in that bare sense is a biological problem or not.

Im sorry ACB, which latter, which definition are you speaking of when you say the latter one?

Let's see if I can encourage you to provide the understanding that you sensibly have in mind already, without having to always use rhetorical question style.

In the event that you have eaten breakfast (it's surely after morning there--though maybe not yet noon, at this point) do you recall having eaten it? Do you recall what you ate? Do you recall the flavor? the heat of the coffee (if you drank that)? If you do, that is your subjective experience because I don't have it; not at all. This is stored memory in your brain.

Memory, in the first stage is working memory. The very milliseconds after having an experience, external or internal (relative to brain) it is a memory trace. The hippocampus puts that into long-term memory after a fairly short time period (which may vary in cases). In that (and we are using English here, and we do have dictionaries) our brains can search themselves and 'read' memory traces, associate and correlate them, and they are cognized so that we know of having that memory (be it remembered correctly or not), we are said to be conscious of them. That means that they have entered into our state of consciousness.

If a memory trace cannot be processed so as to leave us in a state of cognizing that we 'know' of that memory trace (again, be it from internal production [for example a totally imaginary scene created in the brain, such as a dream event] or external production [for example reading a newspaper article]) we are said to not be conscious of it; and thus it does not enter our state of consciousness.



Yes, it does.




Yes, it does.

Hi,

I am using the concept of consciousness as the that which is aware. It is that which is peering through the eyes and is aware of the outside (shapes, smells, sounds, tactile) as well as the inside (thoughts, emotions).

Consciousness gathers this information, processes it, stores it as cumulative memory and uses the information to create. It shares what it creates with other consciousnesses (beings). These can be humans or other aware beings such as pets. The purpose of consciousness is to explore, create and to share its creations.

Now here is the kicker:

Memory is not lost. It is retained through physical lives. It manifests as instincts, inherited characteristics, innate abilities that we are born with. Extreme examples of this would be child prodigies who seem to have gifts in music, arts, singing, sciences, math, sports, etc. These special gifts are nothing more than accumulated skills (memories) from past lives. I, for example, happen to be quite good in business compared to my friends.

So, the physical body is nothing more than a vehicle for consciousness to do what it wants to do. Explore using the motor and information receiving functions of the body (senses), and to share using the transmitting apparatus. Consciousness therefore transcends the physical biological body as it moves through multiple bodies, as a body might move through multiple cars.

But, consciousness should not be thought of as independent of the physical body. Physically it a manifestation of consciousness. Creating the physical body is one of the things that consciousness has learned to do, and it is created from consciousness.

Rich

The inform

I meant (using your phrase) "consciousness based upon anything that the senses are subjected to".

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 04:19 PM ----------



Interesting speculations, but I think it would be wise to consider whether there might be alternative (purely biological) explanations for innate abilities. Remember Occam's Razor.



Are you saying that there was consciousness before there were any physical bodies?

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 04:33 PM ----------



OK, but you're not going to assume the statement in bold as part of the basic definition of consciousness, are you? That would be begging the question. I take it that your presentation will argue that consciousness is a biological (brain) phenomenon as a matter of fact, not definition. Then others such as Pathfinder will be able to argue against this if they wish.

Kj,

How does this then define the conscious response to a subjection that you have not yet experienced? Something that is not yet stored? Does this definition take that into account?

For instance smelling a flower that has an aroma that you have never before experienced, or the odor that one would be subjected upon opening the closet door of Odenskrage's bedroom.

is the conscious experience of that incident calculated in this definition?

I am not tryin to be difficult here, I just want the continuation of this to be understood before we get into it, so we do not run into the same problem as last time.

Yes, I think my view of life is much simpler than the strictly biological view that has to embrace all sorts of mysterious ideas dna, genes, neurons, instincts, inherited characteristics, life mysteriously manifesting from matter (everything started with the Big Bang), etc.

My concepts are simple:

Consciousness, memory, creating.



Yes, consciousness is the ethereal origin. Physical bodies are something that consciousness learn to create over time (a skill). It is basically using itself, in a condensed form, to create more of itself. Sort of like this:



or like this:



or like this:





This would be extraordinary. I haven't even found a consistent definition of what consciousness is much less anything near a fact that it is biological. Of course, it is always possible to provide a definition that is biological: e.g., consciousness is a neuron shaking its butt. But then we would have to figure out what is causing all of the shaking. I am suggesting that the initial impetus, movement, etc. is consciousness. Consciousness is shaking its own butt and we see it by looking at living things - e.g. neurons.

Rich

I think we have come to a consensus. (BrightNoon, Salima, richrf, Kielicious* for 'the sum of all experience' and against no more than 3 votes for any other option)

*Can I count you toward this definition Kielicious? Your 'subjective experience' is identicial in meaning. Rather than have us all vote for that, why don't you vote for ours? We need to get this thing done.

Consciousness: the sum of all experience.

I will start a new thread naming this definition as the premise upon which debate should be founded.

My new Motto:

Consciousness is shaking its own butt!

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 12:13 PM ----------



Ican go with that Noon, but isn't KJ suggesting that it is the other defintion that won the vote,,,sbjective experience,,,which one are we using ?

'Subjective experience' wasn't even offered until after the vote ended. Excluding that, we had a tie between 'option 3' (which escapes me at the moment, but involved the word awareness in some way) and 'the sum of all experience.' I assumed that Kielicious would be happy with the latter, because, as noted by Salima and others, 'subjective experience' is exactly the same thing, so I counted him towatd 'the sum...' If he's not happy with that, let him make his proposal.

Siiiigh, I'm, getting tired of politics. I wanted philosophy. If anyone is alright with using 'the sum of all experience' as the definition, come to the thread I posted called 'The Problem of Consciousness.' If not, o well. I'm done with politicking.

EDIT: I qualified the definition with 'subjective experience' in parentheses, in the hopes of satisfying everyone.

Now it reads..

Consciousness: the sum of all experience*.

(*subjective experience)

The neural network of the brain is trained for new activation vectors, just like a (much simpler) backpropagation network



I value cleanliness highly, and that's Herr Odenskrigare to you

Since we are using them synonymously I see no problem with using that definition.

Firstly, to respond to ABC's concern (post #690, last paragraph), no, not part of the definition, per se, but what is happening with memory. You are correct in the rest of that paragraph as concerns my presentation.




We now have a working definition for consciousness, for the purpose of this thread, and the above concern raised by you, Pathfinder, is not one of definition, but rather one of what consciousness is doing. It may be that some details about memory workings are yet to be learned, and that may have given room for the concern? There can be no cognized, acknowleged response to externally sourced stimuli, if there is no externally sourced stimuli. Also, externally sourced stimuli signals may not always recieve cognition acknowlegment by the state of consciousness, and thus no episodic, emotional, or declarative memory can be accessed to any after the fact aware state of consciousness. (but English might be getting in the way here. Instead of 'that you have not yet experienced,' (which demands the understanding that that event has not yet happened) you might have intended something like, 'that you have experienced for the first time.)





Odorants are real things--chemical or lipid structures (if my memory serves me well on the lipid part)--and have a number of forms which lock into receptors of the olfactory bulb. It does not matter if a person has never had a certain structure lock in, in a certain fashion (there are a couple or so ways that (as far as is known and tested) any given single structure can lock in, resulting in different spiking rates), there will be a spiking rate which signals directly for processing. This is because this system is hardwired into brain development--it's in the 'genetic program.'

I will pick up with my presentation where I had left off at, along with the few other points that I had intended to touch on from the distant past, and some which have come up more recently. I had entered a presentation from the motor sytem (details found in these places:

#50 Williams-Beuren Syndrome; #274 motor system--basal ganglia; #299 motor system--cerebellum; #305 PD; #357 HD)

and had also been applying that towards responding to jeeprs #98. As I will slowly start getting a bit more busy again, as the start of the fall/winter semester draws nearer, so please do forgive my sluggishness.

As evidence has provided a very clear understanding of the structures involved in the motor system, we have come to understand to a rather high degree, the difficulties which can cause problems for that overall system. While those who fall under the catagory of Williams-Beuren Syndrome do not display motor problems per se, the lack of normalcy in visuo-spatial cognition presents a drain on motor otherwise normal motor performance in certain circumstances. People affected with PD will have disturbance with the dopermagenic structures, and inability to willfully produce motor commands. HD patients will have difficiencies in GABAergic and acetylcholinergic neuron structured areas, and will have involuntary motor activities not commanded by the state of consciousness.

Those diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome (TS) will present involuntary tics (sudden, fairly continual and repetitive body movements or vocal activity) (1) along with a degree (over a range of severity) of obsessive activities. TS symptoms overlap with Obsessive-Compulsive disorder (OBC) and Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is a neurological condition for the most part, but can be seen, in a degree (and in a sense) as a neuropsychiatric condition.

One factor which can lead to TS is a genetical one, with evidence for Slit and Trk-like 1 (SLITRK1) on chromosome 13--a de nova inversion. Also, the concordance rate for monozygotic twins ranges from around 50% to 90% (as best discerned from the evidence), with some 1:2,000 ratio for males, and 1:10,000 for females. Another considered factor leading to the disorder in some cases, or in connection with possible genetic lean, is environmental in nature. Observations that the development of TS following cases of streptocaccal infection (strep infection) strongly appeared to be the cause in some cases (and there is evidence of anti-basal ganglia antibodies (immune system fighting strep infection) misidentifying and destroying some neurons in the basal ganglia.

While the basal ganglia is a source of TS symptoms, there is also good evidence of D2 (doparmine) receptor and doparmine transporter (DAT) excess in the caudate nucleus, excess of alpha-adrenergic (a-2A) receptors in frontal regions, and evidence of dynorphin A level disturbances had been demonstrated. (this evidence is by a number of methods of investigation with the firmer evidence being through post mortem studies) The overall effect is frontal cortical abnormality brought about by (in various combinations of cases) reduced caudate, pallidum and left lentricular nuclei volume, reduced, or increase in corpus callosum area, among a few other things.

What does this mean in terms of cognitive results, actions, and personality? What bearing might this have on evidence for any understanding on the source of human consciousness? I will touch on those points next.

One thing that does come to mind here and now, however, is a comment made by jeeprs (see post number 19, there), namely:

[indent][/indent]

Taking the bulk of the scientific position to be a matter of pure scientific method based on application of things like real observation, deduction, ration, and empirical knowledge, I would greatly suspect that the expressed strategy of combat could end up very much much being alikened to combatting architectural engineering knowledge and understanding with that of art theory--rather than working on cooperation of applying art theory on top of the basis of the knowledge of architectural engineering to build beautiful, strong, stuctures that will not fall down (like that bridge, that department store (Korea)[not to mention the USA, too].




1. Often worded as repetitive sterotyped movements, echolalia, and echopraxia.

One fairly common myth, so it seems, amongst those who basically know of TS, is that those with the disorder go around blutting out obscenities, or curse words (coprolalia). While of course some patients do let foul language come spilling out of their mouths, at the most of embarressing times even, or make obscene gestures (copropraxia), it is not true that all do; in fact, studies estimate that from 10~15% of TS patients do so.

However a person with TS will most usually have tics, for example, they may make clicking noises, or grunts, or blurt out words or sentences over and over (more so in stressful situations). These do tend to wane and wax, and are of two types--simple and complex. One case study took note of how one patient would call his mother a slut, or tell her to f~ off, while shopping with her. At times the sexual vocalizations seem to be slightly environmentally casued--as when in a situation where there are girls around;(1) also repeating portions of what has been said (echolalia).

Motor tics might be in head jerking, arm waving, scratching, touching, hitting, or pointing, amoung other things. One famous Canadian surgeon (who last I heard was still giving winter semester lectures at the U of Arizona), Mort Doran, would slouch in awkward, distorted positions, tapping colleagues on on their shoulders with his toes while discussing, for example, an up-coming operation. There are also cases of those who spit, such as John Davidson (Galashiels, Scotland) who would always do so during family meals...trying to hit everyones plates. (but they put up 'shields' [only the father totally refused to eat with the family]).

It has been reported that there is a greater tendency (again, urban myth) that these things are voluntary; they can be controlled to a great degree for some period of time, but these activities (tics) are in no way voluntary. When professor Hollenbeck (Neurobologist at Purdue University [as of 2004]) taught his classes, the up and down movements of one arm, the twists of his head, and the barely audible sounds, all but disappear. He is quoted by Science (Vol 305, 3 Sept. '04; pp 1390-92) as saying that by the time the lectures were finished, the desire to tic was unbearable, and he'd rush back to his office to "tic, tic, tic" until that pressing urge had subsided--although tics were still there, but just that the urge that built up in stimulation had been released. When Dr. Doran goes in to do surgery, his tics are totally under control.

While it is a great incapacitation in many situations or cases, that is not always the case. Just as certain neurological abnormalities can give rise to greater function and capacity in other areas of brain build, TS does evidence a possible tendency to bring out an ability to concentrate (likely learned as a side task to conditioned suppression efforts) as seen in the areas of sports or music. John (above) was a very good basketball player, and his symptoms are at a lower level in game. Also, more famous sports people like Jim Eiesenreich (former Major League Baseball), Tim Howard (goal keeper for Manchester United), and Mike Johnston (relief pitcher for Pittsburgh Pirates), and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (former NBA player), as well as muscians like Michel Wolff, and another jazz drummer who says that TS really helps him focus in the rhythym, have TS. It is very possible that author Samuel Johnson may have had TS, and perhaps less sure, but possible, according to circumstantial evidence, that Wolfgang Mozart had had TS as well. (note for cross-reference to Mozart in closing words here)

The 'urge' that comes up for the tics, and the OBC-like activity, is evidently the same that normal brain can, and has been shown to produce--a conscious (newer sense) brain thing, but not a matter of consciousness . . . not a voluntary execution of a command through a state of awareness and intent. (as has been demonstrated in open brain surgery). The fault most evidently strongly falls in inhibition loss in the systems that rely on, and make up, the basal ganglia.

The act itself, the tics and the persistent rituals are recognized and acknowledged by the state of consciousness having been activated, of course, and even the urge--the feeling that you just have to do it [perhaps like scratch that mesquito bite]--is cognized and recognized by the state of consciousness, but that sensation is brain working in an abnormal way which lies in the level of conscious brain which is below the threshold we call consciousness. (for this reason, the urge can not be surpressed, and builds up tension through spiking activity)

It has been contend that it is thinkable that the troubled girl who had formed the basis for the book (then movie) The Exorcist had had TS, and it had been misinterpreted by some observers as having had demonic possession. What appears, on the surface at least, to be contradictory in nature here, is that while brain is in control, the brain is not. That is because the element of cognizant volition in the realm of consciousness that is mind, is not able to execute inhibition of that part of the motor system that it otherwise can control through inhibition. How this provides further evidence against the concept of a 'soul' will come up later.




1. The most common pattern for tics is onset somewhere around the ages of 6, or 7 yrs., and diminishing greatly in the mid- to late teens. Also young children who do not present full-blown TS symptoms can, in cases, have tic problems for a period.