From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

@KaseiJin,

hi kj-
i am certainly looking forward to see what you have to say about the 'old ego'...because i really do think it is alive and well and causing lots of calamities....

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

thanks KJ and certainly take all the time in the world after all the story so far has taken 1.5 billion years, coupla more days neither here nor there...

0 Replies

@Hermes,

Hermes;94530 wrote:

I strongly doubt this is "consciously" done, though.

... certainly not always (Britney Spears comes to mind as a poster child in this respect :nonooo:) ... but I think that various traditions have understood the power of consciousness to change itself as a matter of practice for millennia Smile

...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;94595 wrote:

... certainly not always (Britney Spears comes to mind as a poster child in this respect :nonooo:) ... but I think that various traditions have understood the power of consciousness to change itself as a matter of practice for millennia ...

Well, how intertwined is consciousness to our mind? Where does effecting the consciousness begin and where does it end (as opposed to that of our mind)? Or, is our consciousness essentially our mind, used here?

If I am to retain a memory, I usually ascribe what just happened to my mind, not necessarily my consciousness. But after reading a lot of the posts here, I've reconsidered. So I think essentially what I'm asking is, what exactly is the relation between what we call consciousness and what we call mind?

Your statement "the power of consciousness to change itself" made me even more curious. What exactly does this mean?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;94596 wrote:

Well, how intertwined is consciousness to our mind? Where does effecting the consciousness begin and where does it end (as opposed to that of our mind)? Or, is our consciousness essentially our mind, used here?

If I am to retain a memory, I usually ascribe what just happened to my mind, not necessarily my consciousness. But after reading a lot of the posts here, I've reconsidered. So I think essentially what I'm asking is, what exactly is the relation between what we call consciousness and what we call mind?

... there are many many things that we do automatically/subconsciously ... that we can through practice take something that initially required conscious effort and turn it into an automatism means that the boundary between conscious and subconscious is a moving one ... that one and the same thing can be done either consciously or subconsciously implies to me that mind is more than just consciousness ...

Zetherin;94596 wrote:

Your statement "the power of consciousness to change itself" made me even more curious. What exactly does this mean?

... Buddhist mind practice comes to mind ... our innate ability to change how we experience and respond to the world through conscious practice ...

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;94531 wrote:

It far more clearly presents itself as being true that in describing consciousness, we have to include the element of 'having knowledge of, and being aware of our own existence (and of objects and events internally) and the existence of others and objects and events outside ourselves.' We thus have an internal perspective, and an external one--this latter being a matter of the observer's perspective.

In the medical world a nurse might assess a person's level of consciousness on behalf of doctors. The highest level is "oriented x 3" which means the person demonstrates that he agrees with me about who he is, where he is, and where we are in time. There are a number of levels between that and the lowest levels in which a person doesn't respond to painful stimulus like being rubbed on the sternum. So I'm following this line of thought and I'll let go of any considerations about the backdrop of this scenario (like the possibility that the nurse and the patient are dream figures within a larger scale consciousness.) At some point, though, maybe we could discuss the intersection of these background considerations with scientific perspectives? But I understand that now we're narrowing our focus.

2 Replies

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;94531 wrote:

It far more clearly presents itself as being true that in describing consciousness, we have to include the element of 'having knowledge of, and being aware of our own existence (and of objects and events internally) and the existence of others and objects and events outside ourselves.' We thus have an internal perspective, and an external one--this latter being a matter of the observer's perspective.

Jumping a little, we will find that the most productive-in-outcome line of inquiry will be that of looking from the observer's perspective.

... so to summarize, you are moving forward with the assertion that the following observations are sufficient to circumscribe consciousness:

1. Evidence of wakefulness
2. Body language indications of "background emotions"
3. Evidence of attention
4. Evidence of concentration (to the exclusion of attending to something else one might otherwise attend to)

... that you want to take the observer's perspective is, of course, to ensure the generality of this line of inquiry ... but I think the starting point is more rightly the internal perspective ... for if we don't start with the internal perspective, then it is possible to - through the criteria stated above - attribute consciousness to, say, an ant colony ... starting from the internal perspective on the other hand, the first criteria becomes (for example), "I am a conscious being of a particular kind (i.e., mammal/primate/hominid) and I know that when I consciously interact with the world that I am awake and so when I see other beings of my particular kind acting the way I act when I am awake it is indicative of their being conscious." ... in this way, I am agnostic as to whether or not an ant colony is conscious even if it can be said to meet the above criteria, simply because an ant colony is not a being of my particular kind.

And I think that to clarify that what we want to do is to take the observer's perspective as grounded in the internal perspective gives the folks in this thread who lean toward the philosophical side of the spectrum the clarity to critique the criteria ... that is, it gives them the opportunity to study their own internal perspective and ask, "Given my internal perspective of my own consciousness and the observable activities that I consciously undertake, do KJ's four criteria sufficiently circumscribe consciousness? Or is there an alternative set of observations that better circumscribes consciousness?" ... for it is interesting to me that you would include "background" emotions yet exclude primary and social emotions as observations indicative of consciousness.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;94648 wrote:

In the medical world a nurse might assess a person's level of consciousness on behalf of doctors. The highest level is "oriented x 3" which means the person demonstrates that he agrees with me about who he is, where he is, and where we are in time. There are a number of levels between that and the lowest levels in which a person doesn't respond to painful stimulus like being rubbed on the sternum. So I'm following this line of thought and I'll let go of any considerations about the backdrop of this scenario (like the possibility that the nurse and the patient are dream figures within a larger scale consciousness.) At some point, though, maybe we could discuss the intersection of these background considerations with scientific perspectives? But I understand that now we're narrowing our focus.

As a way to establish the level of consciousness in a patient, that makes sense from a clinical viewpoint. But, to broaden the focus once again, at some point I will be raising the question of super-consciousness - for example, remote viewing, clairvoyance, and telepathy. It will be interesting to consider how these phenomena can be explained from a physicalist viewpoint. (Woody Allen: "I cheated in my first year at NYU. In the metaphysics exam, I looked into the soul of the boy next to me...)

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

i guess i would have to say initially i see some difficulty in the case of mental patients, as to whether one would classify them as being conscious. suppose they are not attending to what we think they should...and there are people who hear voices...how do we determine what they hear is nothing but an internally manufactured or misinterpretted stimulus? their bodily representations of emotional patterns may also not coincide with what we put on our list. for the purposes of philosophical determination as to the origin or aspect of consciousness, why is there a need to define whether a person is conscious or not by what it is they are conscious of?

and if we want to include self-observation, we would have to accept as admissible whatever is produced by a subject as having been self-verified. physicalists cannot accept that as far as i know, even though it seems to me that much philosophy is based on that alone. i think self observation is acceptable only to that particular self which experienced it, and all that can be done then is to compare to what other selves have experienced, and if it matches enough times in enough ways that would provide the credibility. but i believe kj does not mean to include any of this.

there has to be consciousness in ants. the other day i was watching a whole group of them working together to carry a small ragment of cashew nut...how do they decide to work together towards some end? how can it be nothing but instinct? there are levels of consciousness i believe, just as there are levels of sentience...even if ants do what they do without the process of thinking, it is amazing...and i would have to call it consciousness. even if they have no choice and cannot behave antisocially as human beings can, what else can it be but consciousness? they are aware when i decide to crush them...as soon as the intention manifests to my mind, they all start scrambling trying to get away, all as far as i can see, and either they all perceive my intention (this is before i make a move) or some do and they communicate it to others.

this may be off topic, but perhaps studying consciousness should begin with animals, even if only because it would be less confusing, and they dont put up any arguments either. no metaphysical concerns...philosophy is moot...and if mind and consciousness are not the same, can we provide evidence to there being a mind in any animals?

i dont suggest we do that here, of course...

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;94648 wrote:

In the medical world a nurse might assess a person's level of consciousness on behalf of doctors. The highest level is "oriented x 3" which means the person demonstrates that he agrees with me about who he is, where he is, and where we are in time.

Well, aside from the fact that I loathe the "alert and oriented x 3" that my interns and residents report to me (it's not just nurses -- and I loathe it because it's so nonspecific as to not be useful for very much), this is NOT NOT NOT an assessment of consciousness and no one ever reports it as such. Someone can be disoriented to person, place, and time, i.e. oriented x 0, but still be conscious. People who are drunk, delirious, whatever, may not be oriented to anything. If someone is unresponsive, then the report you get from a nurse or intern or whatever is that they're unresponsive, hopefully qualified by "responsive only to touch" or "unresponsive to deep pain" or "responsive to voice". We DO get all these. If someone is unresponsive to deep pain (without even a change in their vital signs), this is a state of deep unconsciousness.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Well you may say we don't assess consciousness, but that is the terminology some people use: LOC: level of consiousness. I know it's not some kind of definitive analysis... just an example of looking at external signs of consciousness. A healthcare worker may use this format to quickly convey what the situation is, and what it's not.

The same person who does this kind of assessment may later be seen talking to a patient who appears to be completely unconscious... there are states of consciousness in which a person has awareness but can't respond. They may later have no memory of what passed, but they're still not a piece of meat. There's a feeling person in there.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;94708 wrote:

Well you may say we don't assess consciousness

I NEVER said that. All I said is that A+Ox3 is not an assessment of consciousness at all. It's not even an assessment at all of alertness. It's an assessment of a response to three questions, that are asked in uncontrolled, heterogeneous, and often leading ways, have no diagnostic value at all for dementia and yet less for delirium, and distract people from doing actually meaningful assessments. It's only useful if it's reassuring (i.e. x3) -- but if someone is not able to answer those questions, it's meaningless except to initiate further assessment.

You want to know if someone is delirious? Do attentional testing, like counting the months of the year backwards, at least to start (and get a timeline of their ups and downs in level of consciousness). You want to know if someone has dementia? Take a history, and do a full Folstein mini-mental state exam to start. You want to assess someone who is unresponsive? A Glasgow Coma Scale can help. You want to convince yourself that you've done an assessment but not actually have done anything? Ask A+Ox3 -- and believe me, I tell my students / interns / residents the same thing I've typed here.

Nurses DO assess level of consciousness. And the ones with good practice and complete documentation do more comprehensive assessments.

Arjuna;94708 wrote:

A healthcare worker may use this format to quickly convey what the situation is, and what it's not.

People say all kinds of things, I could give you plenty of examples from physician documentation ("vital signs stable", also meaningless -- someone can be dead and have stable vital signs); and this is one of those common practices that are bereft of clinical meaning. They quickly convey the patient's ability to answer those questions. They do not convey alertness, they do not convey consciousness, and they are limited even for orientation depending on the patient.

Arjuna;94708 wrote:

The same person who does this kind of assessment may later be seen talking to a patient who appears to be completely unconscious... there are states of consciousness in which a person has awareness but can't respond.

That is true -- but tell me how A+Ox3 differentiates that kind of patient from someone in a true coma, someone cortically dead, or someone with true brain death.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;94710 wrote:

That is true -- but tell me how A+Ox3 differentiates that kind of patient from someone in a true coma, someone cortically dead, or someone with true brain death.

Isn't A+Ox3 part of the Glasgow Coma Scale? It's part of some scale. Obviously you're right.

Actually this points to how much reasoning is part of objectively assessing consciousness. A big part of assessment is, like you said: what's the person's history... what drugs were just administered... sedation? paralytics? hopefully not paralytics without sedation..:perplexed:

0 Replies

@KaseiJin,

No, it's not part of the GCS (though the ability to do all 3 gets you a 5 on the verbal part of it). The GCS is only validated for trauma, though paramedics use it routinely for non trauma patients. Obviously if someone gets a 3 on the GCS, they're in a state of deep neurologic impairment, though the prognostic value of that again is only established for trauma cases. (I mean if you take someone to the OR for an appendectomy, and they get succinylcholine and isofluorane for paralysis/general anesthesia, they're likely to get a 3 on the GCS, but it's meaningless).

The first part of the physical examination is general appearance. A lot of information can be gathered from that. If they're awake, even if they're disoriented to person, place, and time, they're conscious. If they're not awake, their degree of consciousness can be ascertained by the ability to wake them up, their response to voice, touch, pain, etc. If you're attributing all this to a disease state, then history etc. is what will clue you in to what happened to them.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

OK, so less asking people if they know where they are. All I'll say is that no formula will protect the world from people who are just following a formula and not paying attention to what they're doing. You have to be conscious to assess consciousness.

So are we talking about consciousness as something a person has, or something a person is? If a creature is aware, but not gifted with mind, is it conscious?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;94814 wrote:

All I'll say is that no formula will protect the world from people who are just following a formula and not paying attention to what they're doing. You have to be conscious to assess consciousness.

Very true. Or to assess anything else.

Arjuna;94814 wrote:

So are we talking about consciousness as something a person has, or something a person is? If a creature is aware, but not gifted with mind, is it conscious?

We can be either conscious or unconscious. You've illustrated the ambiguity in the verb to be here. We can be conscious in the predicative sense (it's a characteristic or quality), but we can't be conscious in the sense of identity (we are not synonymous with the word "consciousness").

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;94843 wrote:

We can be conscious in the predicative sense (it's a characteristic or quality), but we can't be conscious in the sense of identity (we are not synonymous with the word "consciousness").

Very interesting. So is 'identity' a specific function of consciousness? As in a subset or a particular 'zone' within consciousness?

I think you could have consciousness without identity - say for example in the case of amnesia, where you could be conscious, able to speak and so on, but not know 'who you are'. So consciousness then could be understood to be not limited to identity. However if you were unconscious you would have neither a sense of identity, nor awareness of your sorroundings.

In Hindu philosophy there is a 'fourth state' of consciousness differentiated from wakefuleness, dreaming sleep or dreamless sleep. This is called 'turiya'. In this state the subject is said to have no consciousness of either objective or subjective phenomena:

Quote:

"The fourth state is not that which is conscious of the subjective, nor that which is conscious of the objective, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor that which is all-sentient mass, nor that which is all darkness. It is unseen, transcendent, the sole essence of the consciousness of self, the completion of the world.[/I]"

I wonder if this fits into the biological map of consciousness?

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

i think you can know your identity without having a 'sense of self'. i remember one time i woke up and just for a moment i didnt know anything-not my name, not the room i was in, completely didnt recognize anything. but the minute you perceive something, it instantly becomes a memory as seconds pass...so there is always something there to build a history of your conscious state, and things you became aware of whether or not you know what they are.

i have had some odd accidental altered states...honestly, no drugs.

another time, when i was knocked unconscious by an auto as i was crossing the street, i woke up still sliding across the street feet first. my state of consciousness then was very near to separate from the body...i could sense making an appraisal of the damage, totally emotionless sort of practical evaluation, but all of it was abstract, there were no words like i always do when i am thinking. it is like i knew i was the one thinking because there was no point in recognizing myself as me, there was no one else around. almost as though i was making an appraisal of this body as to whether or not it was of any use any more-i noticed a knee was damaged and the side of the head. then as i became comfortable with it (there was no pain at all by the way) and voices started and people arrived, my normal sense of awareness slowly returned. slowly but in a matter of minutes i mean.

whether this has anything to do with the subject, i dont know.

but jeep, i think what you are referring to in the quote is just the experience of gnosis, or what is sensed in the highest state of samadhi. that is what it sounds like to me, anyway. how this would relate to any medical definitions of conscioueness or awareness, i dont know. in fact, there have been tests done when people are meditating-i think they were doing the brainwave tests, and whatever the results were i dont recall but they werent anything conclusively spectacular. they were supposed to press a button whenever they entered the state of samadhi.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

Actually, now you mention it, it might be worth looking into those brainwave tests of people meditating. However it occurs to me that whatever can be observed third-person is not really an indication of the first-person significance of these states. It shall have a look around. (Although still waiting to see if anyone has anything to say about the Piano Study.)

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 07:26 PM ----------

and whether this provides an example of 'downward causation' (i.e. from consciousness to matter) which according to the strictly biological account is not supposed to occur (please correct me if I am mistaken in all this).

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;94870 wrote:

i think you can know your identity without having a 'sense of self'. i remember one time i woke up and just for a moment i didnt know anything-not my name, not the room i was in, completely didnt recognize anything. but the minute you perceive something, it instantly becomes a memory as seconds pass...so there is always something there to build a history of your conscious state, and things you became aware of whether or not you know what they are.

i have had some odd accidental altered states...honestly, no drugs.

another time, when i was knocked unconscious by an auto as i was crossing the street, i woke up still sliding across the street feet first. my state of consciousness then was very near to separate from the body...i could sense making an appraisal of the damage, totally emotionless sort of practical evaluation, but all of it was abstract, there were no words like i always do when i am thinking. it is like i knew i was the one thinking because there was no point in recognizing myself as me, there was no one else around. almost as though i was making an appraisal of this body as to whether or not it was of any use any more-i noticed a knee was damaged and the side of the head. then as i became comfortable with it (there was no pain at all by the way) and voices started and people arrived, my normal sense of awareness slowly returned. slowly but in a matter of minutes i mean.

whether this has anything to do with the subject, i dont know.

but jeep, i think what you are referring to in the quote is just the experience of gnosis, or what is sensed in the highest state of samadhi. that is what it sounds like to me, anyway. how this would relate to any medical definitions of conscioueness or awareness, i dont know. in fact, there have been tests done when people are meditating-i think they were doing the brainwave tests, and whatever the results were i dont recall but they werent anything conclusively spectacular. they were supposed to press a button whenever they entered the state of samadhi.

You are entering the world of personal experience where men of science can try to explain but never really manage to satisfy your beliefs about the said experience.

0 Replies

From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know